^^ 


►*•- 

/O^^ 


Tlie  rropci'ty 


BARTON  SQUARE,  SALEM. 


DEPOSITED 


—  IN    TlIK  — 


LIBR  ARY^^ 

—  Ill-   Till-:  —  _v  '—  ■_. 

ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


,-4      -.  >  * 


THIRD  LETTER 


REV.  WILLIAM   E.  CHANNING, 


0S  THE  S17B7SCT.-OF 


UNITARIANISM. 


BY  SAMUEL  WORCESTER,  D,  D, 

PASTOR  OF  TBE  TABERNACLE  CHURCH,    SALEM, 


BOSTO^': 

yBIRTEI)    nr    SA?iC£L   X.   AHMSTROSn,  VO.    50,   COIiSRII.t 


1815, 


LETTER. 


SEV.    AND  DEAR  SIR, 

I  FIND  that  you  have  seen  fit  to  make  to  the  publick 
another  set  of  remarks  about  me,  and  about  other  persons 
and  things  in  connexion  with  me.  I  did  hope,  if  you  shoidd 
condescend  to  write  again,  it  would  not  be  in  the  style  of  a 
murmurer  and  complainer,  or  of  a  popular  suiter  and  declaim- 
er.  If  the  "self-respect"  and  "virtuous  indignation,"  of  which 
you  have  so  emphatically  spoken,  required  you  to  turn  your 
back  upon  your  opponent,  and  to  refuse  to  him  the  offices,  not 
only  of  brotherly  kindness,  but  of  common  civility;  yet  it 
might  have  been  well,  had  they  not  withheld  you  also  from  at- 
tending to  the  points  which  essentially  belong  to  the  debate, 
w'nch  have  been  distinctly  stated  and  urged,  and  which  cer- 
tainly merit  very  serious  and  candid  consideration  and  dis- 
cussion. Those,  however,  are  virtues  it  should  seem  of  no 
d'dinary  loftiness  and  inflexibility,  and  of  no  ordinary  claims 
and  prerogatives. 

On  the  question  of  writing  again,  several  considerations 
haA'c  presented  themselves  to  my  mind.  My  Second  Letter 
seems  to  need  no  vindication  or  support;  as  your  Remarks 
have  not  I  suppose,  to  any  one,  even  t!ic  appearance  of  an  an- 
swer. My  labours  and  duties  are  many,  and  my  health  is 
frail.  A  considei'able  portion  of  tlie  publick  are  piobably 
desirous  that  the  controversy  should  cease:  as  a  lurge  chiss 
have  not  patience  to  attend  long  to  any  subject  wliich  re- 
quires serious  thought;  not  a  few  have  an  imposing  prejudice 
against  all  rc'ii;<ri<)us  debate,  and  a  morbid  dread  nf  tliis  dis- 
cussion in  particular;  as  if  relL?,ious  truth,  and  such  especial- 
ly as  relatfs  directly  to  the  redenipticn  of  mankind,  and  the 
person  and  kingdom  of  tiic  Redeemer,  ought  not  to  be  de- 
veloped or  defended:  and  not  a  little  inlluence  is  exerted  to 
piCA'cut  pco]>1c   from   reading — more   than  one  side. — Still 


iiowcvci-  tlierc  are  many  who  do  read  and  will  read  both  sides» 
The  points  in  discussion  are  among  the  most  important,  that 
could  be  offered  to  the  attention  of  the  christian  community. 
Though  some  ill  effects  may  ensue,  as,  in  a  world  like  this,  is  al- 
ways to  be  expected,  when  any  thing  is  attempted  for  th& 
cause  of  truthj  yet  the  persuasion,  I  believe,  is  continually  ex- 
tending and  gaining  strength,  that  the  good  effects  will  great- 
ly preponderate.  And  though  I  have  been  accused  of  being  a 
volunteer  in  this  service,  as  I  would  certainly  wish  to  be,  in 
a  cause  so  deeply  interesting  to  the  honour  and  kingdom  of 
the  Lord  Jesus;  yet  as  I  have  girded  on  the  harness,  whether 
prudently  or  imprudently,  the  time  does  not  seem  to  have  ar- 
rived for  me  to  put  it  off. — What  I  have  now  to  offer  will  be 
disposed  under  several  distinct  heads. 

I.  In  the  outset  of  your  Remarks,  you  re-m-ge  the  charge 
of  "bad  spirit  and  intention."  To  this  J  am  compelled  briefly 
to  reply. — My  conscience  bears  me  witness,  tliat  my  design  has 
been  not  to  excite  popular  or  party  passions  and  animosi- 
ties, already  in  a  flame  when  I  first  took  my  pen,  but  to  as- 
saugc  thcm;not  to  promote  a  violent  disruption,  or  an  ir- 
regular denunciation  in  the  christian  community,  but  to  give 
such  a  direction  to  the  controversy,  as  m  ould  lead  to  sober 
and  conscientious  inquiry,  and  to  a  right  understanding  of 
truth  and  of  duty.  It  has  lon^^  been  well  known,  that  I  have 
not  been  the  advocate  of  rash  measures,  of  liasty  separations, 
or  of  a  rigorously  i-estricted  system  of  fellowship.  You  have 
yourself  been  pleased  to  say,  that  you  had  ^'regarded  me  as 
a  man  of  candour,  moderation,  and  liberal  feelings."  Though 
you  liavc  seen  ftt  to  alter  your  opinion,  and  to  represent  mo 
as  a  man  destitute  of  candoju',  and  possessed  of  a  bitter,  ma- 
lip;nant,  and  persecuting  spirit;  yet  1  suppose  it  will  be  obvi- 
ous to  otiiers,  if  not  to  yourself,  that  this  latter  opinion  has 
been  formed  under  circumstances  not  the  most  favourable  to 
:;n  impartial  itnd  correct  judguient;  and  lam  sustained  in  the 
conlidencc,  that  candid  men  will  pronounce,  that  for  your  sud- 
den clian^c  of  o])inion,  and  your  consequent  n  iraiaatiims,  so 
liiistily  expressed,  and  so  peitinaciously  reiterated,  you  had 
no  sulliwieiit  reason. 


To  a  candour,  indeed,  which  confounds  the  distinction  be- 
tween truth  and  errour, — to  a  moderation  which  regards  both 
the  one  and  the  other,  as  of  little  consequence, — to  a  liberali- 
ty which  places  them  on  equal  terms,  in  regard  to  christian 
character  and  christian  communion,  I  make  no  pretensions. 
I  do  hold,  that  belief  in  tiie  truth  is  essential  to  Christianity; 
and  that  "the  church  of  the  living  God,  which  is  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth,'*  and  the  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
who  are  "set  for  the  defence  of  the  gospel,'*  have  not  only  a 
right  to  inquire,  but  are  under  obligations  of  infinite  responsi- 
bility to  inquire,  concerning  the  faith  as  well  as  the  practice 
of  individuals  and  communities,  claiming  christian  fellowship; 
—to  inquire,  however,  with  candour,  and  meekness,  and  char- 
ity, making  a  difference  between  ignorance  and  disbelief,  and 
between  circumstantial  errours,  and  fundamental.  This  is 
my  heinous  offence, — my  unpardonable  crime.  It  is  on  ac- 
count of  this  persuasion,  that  you  have  "considered  my  letter 
unworthy  of  me  as  a  cliristian  and  a  christian  minister,"  and 
"thought  that  I  have  discovered  a  strange  insensibility  towards 
ray  brethren,'*  and  written  with  a  bad  spirit  and  intention. 
I  say,  this  is  the  reason  of  your  abundant  criminations  of  me; 
for  you  have  pointed  to  no  other,  but  to  this  you  have  distinct- 
ly and  repeatedly  pointed. 

Wlmt  you  think  of  me,  or  what  I  think  of  you,  is  in  itself 
of  little  importance  to  the  publick,  and  can  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  merits  of  the  cause  in  debate.  It  may  be,  howev- 
er, of  considerable  consequence,  to  remark  the  grounds  on 
which  you  are  so  ready  to  pronounce  a  man  to  be  destitute  of 
candour,  and  charity,  and  all  good  motives  and  feelings,  and 
to  impute  to  him  a  bitter,  malignant,  and  persecuting  spirit; 
as  it  may  serve  to  explain  the  nature  of  that  charity  on 
which  you  lay  so  great  a  stress,  and  to  wliich  you  m;\ke  such 
lofty  pretensions.  Let  it  here  then  be  distinctly  noted,  that, 
according  to  your  representations,  if  a  man  demur  as  to  chris- 
tian fellowship,  on  accountcf  any  crror.r  in  sentime?it,  he  is 
destitute  of  cliarity,  and  a  persecutor;  if  ho  regard  no  errouv 
as  any  bar  to  fellov.ship,  he  is  a  charitable  man,  and  a  liberal 
diristian.  This  topick  I  shall  ha\^e  orrasion  t**  ctnr>idoT  Uiv~ 
t-fcicr  in  anathcr  place. 


11.  You  g\\  e  it  to  be  understootl,  that  the  reason  of  your 
appearins?  again  before  the  publick,  was  my  call  upon  you  to 
retract  a  misstatcnient.  You  Jiad  stated  that  «thc  obvious 
import  of  the  cont  hiding  part  of"  my  lirst  ^'Letter  might  be 
tlius  expressed:  *Every  man  who  cannot  admit  as  a  doctrine 
of  scripture,  the  great  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God, 
which  I  and  other  orthodox  christians  embrace,  believes  an 
opposite  gosjiel,  rejects  the  true  gospel,  despises  the  autliori- 
ty  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  of  course  a  man  wholly  wanting  in  true 
piety  and  without  christian  virtue;  and  may  in  perfect  consist- 
ency with  christian  love  be  rejected  as  unworthy  the  name  of 
a  christian.'  "  I  did  pronounce  tliis  «a  flagrant  misstate- 
ment," and  solemnly  call  upon  you  to  retract  it.  In  reply 
you  say.  <«I  intend  to  shew,  that  in  giving  this  inter])reta- 
tion,  I  followed  tlie  natural  meaning  of  Dr.  Wore  ester's  words, 
that  I  put  no  violence  on  his  language,  and  that  no  other  sense 
would  have  offered  itself  to  an  unprejudiced  mind."  Y'ou 
then  j)roceed  to  "slate  the  passages"  of  my  letter  "which  led 
to  the  representation  which  you  had  formed." 

I  did  propose  to  req  note  all  those  passages  in  their  order, 
for  the  sake  of  shewing  in  a  strong  light  the  strange  slate  of 
that  mind  which  could  assert,  and  in  the  face  of  the  clear  ex- 
position of  my  Si'iitiments  and  views,  given  in  my  Second 
Letter,  reassert,  that  "the  natural  meaning-"  of  them  is  given 
ill  your  contested  statement.  But  I  feel  a  strong  repugnance 
to  filling  the  pages  of  my  present  letter  witli  quotations  from 
my  former  ones;  and  a  repugnance,  not  less  strong,  to  be- 
stowing S3  much  attention  upon  a  jioint  so  personal.  One 
principal  passage,  therefore,  may  suffice.  "Is  it,"  I  ask  in 
my  first  Letter,  p.  32,  "Is  it  then  a  violation  of  the  great  law 
of  lovef[)r  the  friends  of  truth  to  decline  communion  with  its 
rejecters? — Wc  have  not!iing  to  do  here  with  slight  divcrsi- 
lics  of  opinion;  with  difierenccs  about  modes  or  forms,  or  in- 
considerable points  of  faith  or  practice.  Our  concern  is  with 
(liffirences  of  a  radical  and  fundamental  nature;  such  as  exist 
between  orthodox  christians  and  Unitarians  of  all  degrees, 
even  down  to  tlie  creed  of  Mr.  Belsham:  for  to  this  }Joint  you 
liave  yourself  fairly  reduced  the  present  question. — Yes,  Sir, 
the  simple  point  here  at  issue  is,  ^Vhet^^erit  be  a  violation  »f 


the  law  of  love  for  believers  in  the  true  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  separate  from  believers  in  another  and  an  opposite  gospel? 
If  yours  is  the  true  gospel,  tlien  ours  is  another;  if  ours  is  the 
true  gospel,  then  yours  is  another.  In  either  case,  the  great 
qu'  stion  respecting  fellowship  remains  the  same."  This  is 
the  passage  on  which  you  seem  mainly  to  rely;  and  it  is  un- 
doubtedly the  strongest  passage  of  the  whole,  and  includes  in 
it  the  principal  ideas,  of  any  aspect  to  your  purpose,  contain- 
ed in  the  rest. — But,  Sir,  do  I  here  say,  that  ^'Enerij  man  who 
cannot  admit  as  a  doctrine  of  scripture,  tlie  great  doctrine  of 
three  persons  in  one  God,  which  I  and  other  orthodox  chris- 
tians embrace,  believes  an  opposite  gospel,  rejects  the  true 
gospel,  despises  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  is,  of  course, 
a  man  wholly  wanting  in  true  'piety  and  without  christian  vir^ 
tue.""  Is  this  "the  natural  meaning  of  the  words?"  and  does 
no  other  sense  offer  itself  to  an  unpi*ejudiced  mind!"  I  put  the 
question.  Sir,  to  your  conscience. 

Please  to  observe.  In  the  first  place,  in  this  passage,  I  state 
the  question  at  issue:  "Is  it  a  violation  of  the  great  law  of  love 
for  the  friends  of  truth  to  decline  communion  with  its  reject- 
ers?"— I  then,  that  the  question  may  be  disembarrassed,  state 
by  way  of  explication,  that  "We  have  nothing  to  do  here 
with  slight  diversities  of  opinion;  with  differences  about  modes 
or  forms,  or  inconsiderable  points  of  faith  or  practice:"  suck 
as  those  might  be  thought  to  be,  which  exist  between  ortho- 
dox christians  and  some  whom  you  would  call  the  higher 
Unitarians.  "Our  concern,"  I  further  observe,  "is  with  dif- 
ferences of  a  radical  and  fundamental  nature;  such  as  exist 
between  orthodox  christians  and  Unitarians  of  all  degrees, 
even  down  to  the  creed  of  Mr.  Belsham-.for  to  this  point  tjou  have 
yourself  Jairly  reduced  the  present  question.**  You  certainly 
had  reduced  it  to  this  point.  You  had  contended,  that  Uni- 
tarians, not  of  the  higher  degrees  only,  but  even  of  the 
lowest  degrees,  ought  to  be  lield  in  christian  fellowsliip.  I 
therefore,  fixed  upon  Mr.  Belsham's  creed,  as  something 
tangible  and  definite,  by  means  of  which  the  merits  of  the 
pending  question  might  be  tried;  and,  reduced  to  this  point, 
the  question,  which  otherwise  might  have  been  attcmlcd  with 
cmbarra^jsment  and  perplexity,  became  to  my  mind  a  very 


plain  one.  Accordingly  I  had  a  little  before  said,  "The 
question  then  is  a  short  one.  Is  not  Mr.  Belsham's  gospel, 
as  set  forth  in  his  creed,  another  j^ospd  thantliat  wljich  Paul 
preached?  If  you  are  not  ^villing  to  admit  this^  yet  surely 
vou  cannot  Ijcsitate  a  moment  to  admit,  that  it  is  another  than 
that  which  is  held  by  ortiiodox  cliristians, — which  is 
preached  by  orthodox  ministers: — essentially  different 
in  every  particular  from  the  foundation  to  the  topstonc. 
One  or  the  other  of  these  schemes  then  must  be  what 
St.  Paul  denominates  another  gospel,  and  against  which  and 
its  abettors  he  solemnly  pronounces  his  apostolick  anathema." 
To  this  statement  I  distinctly  refer  in  the  passage  under  consid- 
eration. Having  thus  simplified  the  question  respecting  fellow- 
vship,  by  restricting  it  to  Mr.  Belsham's  scheme,  I  then  proceed 
to  restate  it  in  these  words:  *'Yes,  Sir,  tlie  simple  point  here 
at  issue  is,  w  hether  it  be  a  violation  of  the  law  of  love  for 
believers  in  the  true  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  to  separate  froni 
believers  in  another  and  an  opposite  gospel.  If  yours  is  the 
true  gospel,  then  ours  is  another^  if  our«  is  the  true  gospel, 
then  yours  is  another.  In  eitiier  case  the  great  question  res- 
pecting fellowship  remains  the  same." — Was  it  possible  for 
the  question  to  have  been  more  clearly  or  definitely  stated? 
Was  it  possible  for  it  to  have  been  more  plainly  expressed, 
that  the  issue  to  be  tried  was  precisely  between  ths  believers 
m  Mr,  Behhaw/s  gospel^  and  the  believers  in  that  called  or- 
thodox? Mr.  Belsham's  is  here  called  "your  gospel,  for  the 
very  obvious  reason,  that  it  is  the  one  which,  in  the  statement 
of  the  question,  is  opposed  on  yotir  part  to  the  one  on  ojtr  pai't." 
Now,  Sir,  I  ask  again,  do  I  in  this  passage  say,  that  «£r- 
6ry  man  who  cannot  admit  as  a  doctrine  of  scripture,  tlie 
great iloctrine  of  three  persons  in  one,  whicli  1  and  other  or- 
thodox christians  embrace,  believes  in  an  opi>osite  gospel, 
i*ejects  the  true  gospel,  despises  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  is,  of  course,  a  man  wholly  wanting  in  true  piety  and 
witliout  christian  virtue."  No,  Sir:  it  is  not  here,  or  any 
where  else  by  me,  said,  that  '.'everif  vian'^  who  does  not  em- 
brace the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  eit  iior  "believes, 
in,"  or  "abets,  an  opposite  gospel,"  or  "rrjects  the  true 
gospel,  01"  despises  the  authority  of  Jesus  Cl)rist,"  or  *'is 


-9 

wholly  wanting  in  christian  pi^ty,"  or  in  "witliout  christian 
virtue."  Neither  of  these  things  is  either  affirmed  or  impli- 
ed in  any  passage  of  mine;  hut  the  terms  used  by  me,  and 
the  entire  connexion,  are  pai*ticularly  and  pointedly  guarded 
against  such  a  construction.  Had  not  ijou  said  it,  I  should 
certainly  have  thought  that  the  person  who  could  say,  thait 
th«  interpretation  which  you  have  given  is  "the  natural  mean- 
ing of  my  words,"  "that  in  giving  such  an  interpretation  no 
violence  is  put  upon  my  language,"  and  "that  no  other  sense 
offers  itself  to  an  unprejudiced  mind,"  really  had  not  "ability 
to  decide  on  the  obvious  import  of  a  letter  written  in  our  na- 
tive tongue,"  and  ought  to  he  sent  to  school,  to  learn  the  very 
rudiments  of  grammar  and  logick.  This  remark  I  apply  to  all 
the  passages  which  you  have  cited.  Taken  severally  or  col- 
lectively, in  a  detached  state  or  in  their  respective  conexions, 
they  neither  naturally  express,  nor  by  all  the  torture  to 
which  you  have  put,  or  can  put  them,  can  they  be  made  to 
yield  the  sense  which  you  have  so  resolutely  attempted  to 
fasten  upon  them. 

Had  it,  however,  been  otherwise;  had  my  expressions  been 
such  as  easily  to  admit,  or  even  naturally  to  convey  the  sense 
of  your  statement;  yet,  if  tliey  would  bear  another  construc- 
tion, and  I  had  explicitly  said  that  such  was  not  my  meaning, 
it  might  have  been  compatible  with  the  laws  of  common  cour- 
tesy for  my  disavowal  to  have  been  candidly  accepted.  It 
has  been  thought  allowable  in  debate,  for  a  person,  when  mis- 
understood, to  explain;  and  right  that  his  explanation  should 
be  admitted.  But  this  privilege  has  not  been  allowed  to  me. 
I  was  misunderstood, — certainly  misrepresented:  and  though 
1  thought  my  language  sufficiently  plain,  yet  I  went,  in  my 
Second  Letter,  into  a  full  and  candid  exposition  of  my  senti- 
ments and  views;  and  not  only  said,  but  shewed,  that  my 
meaning  was  not,  and  could  not  have  been,  such  as  you  had 
stated.  Yet  after  all  this,  you  take  it  upon  you  to  say,  that 
you  "cannot  avoid  the  belief  that  my  recollections  on  this 
point  are  imperfect;"  you  resolutely  insist  on  your  former  in- 
terpretation, wliich  I  have  explicitly  disavowed,  and  refuse  to 
admit  my  frank  exposition  of  my  own  meaning.  This,  Sir,  is 
cairying  tlie  claims  of  yanr  "self  respect  veryfar;to  an  extent^ 


10 

i  believe,  beyond  what  any  courteous,  and  candid,  and  mod- 
est, and  honourable  man,  to  say  nothing  of  a  christian  minis- 
ter, e\  er  before  attempted. 

I  must  here  quote  from  your  Remarks  an  extraordinary 
passage.  <»Dr.  Worcester,  however,"  you  say,  p.  12,  "as- 
sures nie  that  I  have  misrepresented  him;  and  I  have  no  dis- 
position to  question  the  sincerity  with  which  he  now  declares 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  communicate  the  sentiments  which  I 
ascribed  to  him.  I  cannot  indeed  avoid  the  belief,  that  his 
recollections  on  this  point  are  imperfect,  and  that  in  the  hur- 
ry of  his  thoughts  and  feelings,  he  w  as  not  so  watchful  over 
his  motives  as  he  now  imagines."  In  the  same  style  you  say,p. 
4,  "Dr.  Worcester,  however,  disclaims  the  feelings  and  inten- 
tions which  I  have  ascribed  to  him. — That  he  is  sincere  in  re- 
porting what  now  appears  to  him  to  have  been  the  state  of  his 
mind  during  the  composition  of  his  first  letter,  I  am  fai- 
from  denying.  But  on  a  subject  like  this,  memory  is  some- 
times treacherous;  and  I  confess  I  cannot  shake  off  the  con- 
viction, that  some  improper  feelings,  perhaps  unsuspected  by 
Dr.  Worcester,  occasionally  guided  his  pen."  Here,  Sir,  is 
an  expedient  to  save  one*s  "self  respect"  from  the  pain  of  a 
concession,  and  to  fix  upon  an  opponent  an  injurious  charge, 
the  whole  credit  of  which,  I  do  believe,  belongs  to  you,  and 
ought  forever  to  remain  in  your  uncontested  possession:  an 
cxpe^lient  of  which,  I  presume,  the  annals  of  controversy 
might  be  searched  throughout  in  vain,  for  an  example,  a  pro- 
totype, or  a  parallel.  Will  any  reader  in  the  world  suppose 
that,  in  both  or  either  of  those  instances,  I  really  misremem- 
bered? — or  that  you  seriously  meant  to  be  understood  that  I 
did  misremember?  Why  then  this  spurious  irony, — tbis  way- 
ward circundocution?  Why  not  charge  me  directly  with 
falsehood,  as  you  had  before  done  the  Reviewers? 

You  have  had.  Sir,  a  fair  opportunity  for  a  display  of  can- 
dour. You  had  misstated  the  import  of  an  important  part  of 
my  Letter.  This  was  a  different  affair  from  that  which  was 
before  between  us,  relating  to  the  Reviewers.  Tliat  was  a 
question  concerning  tbe  meaning  of  a  third  party,  and,  tliere- 
fore,  concerning  which  I  as  well  as  you  might  misjudge;  this 
was  a  question  respecting  my  own  meaning,  and  iTspcctuig 


11 

which  I  could  not  mistake.  I  supposed  you  had  wronged  the 
Reviewers;  I  knew  you  liad  wronged  me.  Without,  however, 
imputing  to  you  any  ill  intention  or  motive,!  remonstrated,ex- 
plained,  and  called  upon  you  to  retract.  It  was  only,  in 
christian  spirit  and  manner,  to  acknowledge  that  you  had 
misapprehended  my  meaning,— and  the  credit  for  ingenu- 
ous feeling,  especially  the  consciousness  of  having  done  an 
act  of  magnanimous  equity  to  an  opponent,  would  have  abun- 
dantly compensated  for  any  self  denial  which  there  might 
havebsen  in  the  case.  But  you  haVe  chosen  a  different 
course,  and  must  look  for  a  different  reward.  I  can,  however, 
assure  you.  Sir,  that  it  would  have  afforded  me  much  greater 
pleasure  to  have  had  occasion  to  acknowledge  your  generous 
candour,  than  I  have  found  in  making  the  kind  of  stricture 
which  you  have  compelled  me  to  make. 

III.  Page  13,  you  make  this  statement.  "Dr.  Clark  be- 
lieved, that  the  Father  alone  is  the  Supreme  God,  and  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  Supreme  God,  but  derived  his  being, 
and  all  his  power  and  honours  from  the  Father,  even  by  an  act 
of  the  Father's  power  and  will.  He  maintains,  that  as  the 
scriptures  have  not  taught  us  the  manner  in  which  the  Son 
derived  his  existe»ce  from  his  Father,  it  is  presumptuous  to 
affirm,  that  the  Son  was  created,  or,  that  there  was  a  time 
when  he  did  not  exist.  On  these  subjects  the  word  of  God 
has  not  given  us  light,  and  therefore  we  ought  to  be  silent. 
The  author  of  Bible  News  in  like  manner  affirms,  that  the. 
Father  only  is  the  Supreme  God,  that  Jesus  is  a  distinct  be- 
ing from  God,  and  that  he  derives  every  thing  from  his  Fath- 
er. He  has  some  views  relating  to  the  "proper  Sonship,"  of 
God,  which  neither  liberal  nor  orthodox  christians  generally 
embrace,  But  the  prevalent  sentiments  of  liberal  christians 
seem  to  me  to  accord  substantially  with  tlie  systems  I  have 
above  described.  Like  Dr.  Clark,  the  majority  of  this  class 
feel  that  the  scriptures  have  not  taught  the  mode  of  Christ's 
derivation.  They  therefore  do  not  call  Christ  a  creature,  but 
leave  the  subject  in  the  obscurity  in  which  they  find  it,  carry- 
ing with  them,  however,  an  impression,  that  the  scriptures  as- 
cribe to  Jesus  the  character  of  Son  of  God  in  a  peculiarly  high 
sense,  and  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  ascribed  to  no  other  being  " 


upon  this  statement  I  submit  the  following  pemarks*. 

1.  The  appellation  ^'liberal  christians,"  is  ambiguous  and 
indetei'minate.      In  your  fii"st  pamphlet  you  tell   us,   that 
"liberal  christians  are  scattered  through  all  classes  of  chris- 
tians;" and  that  although  "in  this  part  of  tl»e  country  they 
are  generally,"  yet  "by  no  means  universally  Unitarians." 
And  you  somewhere,  I  think,  estimate  that  about  one  third 
pai-t  of  the  ministers  and  christian  professors  in  this  common- 
wealth are  of  the  liberal  class.    I  have  myself  computed,  that 
about  this  proportion  are  non-calvinistickj  and  it  should  seem 
that  all  these  arc  included  by  you  in  the  denomination  of 
"liberal  christians."      Of  these,  however,  I  have  supposed 
there  are  many,  who  arc  not  Unitarians.     They  may  have, 
some  difficulties  and  doubts  res|)ecting  the  terms  in  which  the 
doctiine  of  the  Trinity  is  often  stated,  and  some  diversities 
in  the  manner  of  conceiving  and  speaking  of  the  doctrine, 
and  yet  believe  in  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.     If  so,  they  ought  not  to  be  classed  with  Unita- 
lians.     "Those,"  as  justly  observed  by  Bisliop  Huntingford, 
"wlio  hold  tlie  doctrine  of  a  Trinity,  however  individually 
they  may  give  different  explications  of  it,  ai'e  nevertheless 
Trinitarians;    as  those,   who   pi-otest  against   a  particular 
church,  although  unhappily  among   themselves   they  have 
separated  from  each  other,  by  multifarious  divisions,  and  dis- 
criminate each  other  by  subtle  distinctions,  implying  even 
dimidiatiou,  are  nevertheless  all  protestants." 
•  Dri  Samuel  Clark  was  not  a  Unitarian,  and  ought  not  to 
he  so  called  or  classed.     He  held  to  an   "ever-blessed 
Trinity," — to  a  Trinity  of  "Divine  Persons," — Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spiiit,   who   existed  together  "from  the 
BEGINNING."     This  is  the  substance  of  his  scheme;  and  in 
tliis  he  agreed  with  orthodox  Trinitarians,  though   in  other 
respects  he  differed  from  them.  And  if,  as  it  "seems"  to  you 
"the  prevalent  sentiments  among  liberal  christians  in  this 
quarter  of  our  country  accord  snhstantiaUy  with  Dr,  Clark's,'* 
then  these  "prevalent  sentiments"  ai'e  not  Unitarian.     How 
large  a  proportion  of  those  whom  you  would  assign  to  the 
liberal  class,  are  Trinitarians,  or  believers  in  the  essential 
djvinity  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  do  not  know;; 


15 

nor  do  I  know  in  what  manner  they  would  severally  explain 
themselves  upon  this  subject,  or  where  they  would  choose  to 
be  considered  as  standing.  1  have,  however,  entertained  the 
hope,  that  by  the  process  of  developement  it  would  be  found, 
that  not  a  few  of  them  are  more  orthodox  than  Dr.  Clark; 
and  that  the  Unitarian  brotherhood  is  much  less  numerous, 
than  you  seem  desirous  of  having  it  understood  to  be. 

2.  It  appears  from  your  statement,  that  the  "prevalent 
sentiments  of  liberal  christians"  are  exceedingly  unsettled, 
indistinct,  and  indeterminate.  "Tlie  majority  of  this  class, 
you  say,/eeZ  that  the  scriptures  have  not  taught  the  mode  of 
Christ's  derivation.  They  therefore  do  not  call  Christ  a^ 
creature,  but  leave  the  subject  in  tlie  obscurity  in  which  they 
find  it,  carrying  with  them,  however,  an  impression,  that  the 
scriptures  ascribe  to  Jesus  the  character  of  Son  of  God  in 
a  peculiarly  high  sense,  and  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  ascrib- 
ed to  no  other  being."  With  these  "liberal  christians,"  then, 
it  is  a  matter  of  utter  uncertainty,  of  endless  doubt,  and,  it 
would  seem,  of  cold  and  lofty  indifference,  who  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  is! — whether  be  is  a  created,  or  an  uncreated 
being;  wliethcr  he  existed  from  eternity,  or  begim  to  exist  in 
time;  whether  he  is  a  God,  who,  though  inferiour  to  the  "su- 
preme God,"  has  yet  a  rightful  claim  to  religious  worship,  or 
only  their  fellow  servant,  to  whom  no  divine  honours  belong! 
From  other  passages,  on  which  I  shall  have  occasion  iu 
another  place  to  remark,  it  appears  that  the  same  uncertainty, 
and  doubt,  and  indifference  exist  with  these  same  *«liberal 
christians,"  in  regard  to  what  Jesus  Christ  has  done  for 
them: — whetlier  he  died  to  expiate  tlieir  sins  with  blood  of 
inestimable  merit,  or  whether  "in  consequence*'  merely  "of 
what  he  has  done  and  suffered,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  avert- 
ed from  the  penitent;*'  as  it  may  have  been,  in  consequence 
of  the  sufferings  and  labours,  the  instructions  and  interces- 
sions of  Paul  and  other  good  men,  by  whose  means  sinners 
have  been  brought  to  repejitance! — Of  course,  there  must  be 
similai'  uncertainty,  doubt,  and  indifference,  as  to  the  obliga- 
tions which  they  owe  to  him;  as  to  the  love  and  trust,  the 
thanks  and  honours  to  which  he  is  entitled. — Do  tbey  tlien 
honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour,  or  should  honour  the 


14 

Father?  They  do  not  know  who  or  what  tfie   So«  is.     Are 
they  blessed  in  putting  tlicir  trust  in  him?  They  do  not  know 
to  what  extent,  or  for  wliat  purposes  he  is  to  be  trusted.  Do 
they  deli^iit  to  join  in  the  heavenly  anthem,  "Worthy  is  th« 
Lamb  that  was  slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wis- 
dom, and  strength,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  blessing? 
They  do  not  know  that  he  is  wortliy  thus  to  be  adored  and 
praised! — Ah!  where  are  we?  Into  what  a  region  of  frost,  of 
darkness,  of  the  shadow  of  deatJi  arc    we  advancing! — Is 
this,  Sir,  the  light  which  is  so  ardently  hailed,  and  so  loudly 
proclaimed  by  tlic  "rational  christians,"  of  this  favoured  age? 
Is  it  here  that  we  are  to  find  the  grand  consummation  of  di- 
vine knowledge,  that  "purer  system  of  Christianity,"  to  which 
you  and  yoiii-  "liberal"  brethren  would  guide  mankind?     Is 
it  in  this  chilling,  dismal  clime,  that  professed  christians  of 
every  name  are  to  meet  together  in  one  blessed  fellowship? 
No  wonder  then  that  Jews  and  Iniidels,  Mohammedans  and 
Pagans  are  invited  to  participate  in  the  blessedness.*      And 
no  \\'onder,  that  they  who  adore  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  "f/te  true 
God  and  eternal  lifcy"  and  delight  in  the  ascription,  "Unto 
him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins,  in  his  own 
blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his 
Father, — to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever," 
sliould  decline  the  invitation. 

"This,"  says  our  great  Intercessor,  "This  is  the  life  eter- 
nal, to  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  the  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent."|    But  in  tlie  knowledge  of  Jesus  the 

*  With  intimations  to  this  cfTcct,  the  wiittogs  of  Unitarians  ahound. 

■j-  "What  is  said  hci-c  of  the  ottly  true  God,  seems  said  in  opposition  to  the  gods 
wlom  the  heathens  worsliipped;  not  in  opposition  to  Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  is 
called  the/n»e  Godhy  John  in  1  Epist.  v,  '20."     Bishop  Pearce. 

"That  our  blessed  Lord  here  speaks  of  the  only  tnie  Gorf,  in  distinction  from 
Idoib,  and  not  to  the  exclusion  of  himself,  appears  from  liis  s|ieakingof  himself  as 
tiic  object  of  the  same  fiducial  knowledge,  with  the  Father,  and  by  his  distin- 
guishing liiiuself  from  the  Father,  not  by  any  essential  title,  but  merely  by  his 
official  character,  viz.  Jenus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent.  And  the  same  apostle 
wlw  recorded  this  prayer,  expressly  says  of  Ciirist;  This  is  the  true  God,  and 
eternal  life,  in  opposition  to  idols."    Dr.  Guise. 

"Those  who  deny  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  think  they  have  a.niighty  argu- 
ment from  this  text,  where  Christ  (as  they  say  si)eaking  to  liis  Father)  calleth 
fiim  the  only  true  (isd.     But  divines  answer,  that  the  term  onlif,  or  alone,  is  not 


15 

Christ,  must  not  liberal  christians,  if  your  account  of  them  is 
correct  be  lamentably  wanting? 

««The  majority  of  this  class,"  you  say,  "feel  that  the  scrip- 
tures have  not  taught  the  mode  of  Christ's  derivation. 
And  well  they  may  feel  this:  since  the  scriptures  declare, 
that  "his  goings  forth  have  been  of  old,  even  from  everlast- 
ing;"—that  "in  the  beginning  he  was  with  God,  and  was 
God;"— that  he  is  "the  same  yesterday,  and  to  day,  and  for- 
ever,"—"Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Beginning  and  the  Ending, 
the  First  and  the  Last."— Your  oracle  indeed.  Dr.  Clark, 
has  a  long  sectien,  entitled,  "The  passages  in  which  he 
[Christ]  is  declared  to  be  subordinate  to  the  Father;  deriving 
his  being  (in  an  incomprehensible  manner)  from  Him,  receiv- 
ing from  him  his  divine  jmver,  (mtlwnUj  and  other  altnbiiUs,'' 
k.c.  And  under  this  head,  in  his  own  imposing  manner,  he 
has  arranged  about  two  hundred  and  forty  texts;  in  not  one 
of  which,  I  feel  perfectly  safe  in  saying,  is  it  "declared  that 
Christ  derived  his  being  and  divine  attributes  from  the 
Father."  It  is  not  then  strange,  that  "the  scriptures  have 
not  taught  the  mode  of  his  derivation."  And  since  yoi\feel 
this,  it  might  be  well  if  you  would  acknowledge  what  the 
scriptures  do  teach,— that  as  God  he  existed  with  the  Father 

from  eternity. 

Christ  and  the  great  work  of  redemption  by  him,  is  the 
grand  subject  of  the  scriptures,  from  the  beginning  to  tlie 
end.  Is  it  then  credible,  that,  after  all,  the  scriptures  have 
not  informed  us,  who  or  what  Christ  is,— whether  God  or  a 
mere  creature,— nor  ^^hat  he  has  done  for  us,  nor  how  wc 
are  to  be  saved  by  him,  nor  wiiut  rcgarils  and  honours  arc 
due  from  us  to  him?  Is  it  credible,  that  the  inspired  writings 
have  left  these  primary  subjects  in  such  "obscurity,"  that 

te  be  applied  to  tl^ee,  but  tolbe  term  God;  and  tl.e  sense  this:  to  know  tliee  to 
be  that  God  ivhichis  the  only  true  God,-  and  this  ym'tarelh  from  1  John  r,  20, 
where  Christ  is  said  to  be  the  true  God,  Nvl.ich  could  not  be  if  the  Fath«r  were 
U.e  only  true  God,  considered  as  another  (God]  from  ihe  Son.  The  te.™  only 
01-  alp^ie  is  not  exclusive  of  the  other  two  persons  in  the  Trinity,  but  only  ot  .dols, 
the  gods  of  the  heathen  which  are  no  goJs.-Our  Saviour  saith  it  is  life  eternal 
to  kno,o  him  .oho  is  the  oid,j  true  Go./,-he  adds,  and  Jesus  Christ  .ohom  thou 
hast  sent:  by  which  he  lets  us  know,  that  the  Father  canaatbe  suv.ngly  knowt,, 
aut  ia  and  br  tht-  Soil."    Poole's  Conliuuutors. 


16 

«»c  man  may  acknowledge  him  as  God,  one  aftd  co-equal  with 
the  Father,  another,  only  as  a  mere  man,  "fallible  and  pec- 
cable like  other  men,"  and  a  third  as  a  demigod,  or  some 
unknown  intermediate  being,  between  the  Creator  and  crea- 
tures,— that  sonie  may  believe  his  ileath  to  hare  been  an  ex- 
piatory sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  others  that  be 
died  only  as  a  witness  to  the  truth, — tliat  some  may  trust  for 
justification  and  salvation  only  in  his  \icai'ious  merits,  and 
others  in  their  own  virtues, — and  yet  all  of  them  have  an 
equal  claim  to  the  name  and  privileges  of  christian  be- 
lievers? Is  it  credible,  that  in  a  divine  revelation,  a  principal 
jobject  of  which  is  to  guard  mankind  against  idolati'tj,  and  to 
teach  them  the  true  worship,  the  representations  are  such  as 
to  make  the  great  body  of  christians  in  every  age  idolaters^'^ 
as  the  fact  certainly  is,  if  Christ  is  not  truly  God!  Surely 
the  man  who  can  believe  all  this,  ought  to  charge  no  other 
man  in  the  world  w  ith  strange  or  enormous  credulity. 

3.  "The  majority  of  liberal  christians,"  you  say,  "carry 
with  them  an  impression,  that  the  scriptures  ascribe  to  Jesus 
the  character  of  Son  of  God  in  a  peculiarly  high  sense,  and 
in  a  sense  in  whicli  it  is  ascribed  to  no  other  being."  Great 
stress  is  laid  by  the  <leniers  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  on  tliis  ajipellation.  Son  of  God:  as  if  it  must  ne- 
cessarily denote  a  separate  being,  infinitely  below  the  Father, 
and  as  if  the  sonship  of  Ciirist  were  denied  by  Trinitarians. 
Neither  the  one  nor  the  otiier  of  these  assumptions  is  admit- 
ted. Trinitarians  not  merely  "carry  with  them  an  impres- 
sion," but  have  a  firm  belief,  that  "the  scriptures  ascribe  to 
Jesus  the  charactev  of  Son  of  God,  in  a  sense  in  wliich  it  is 
ascribed  to  no  other  being."  Some  of  them  indeed  understand 
the  scriptures  as  ascribing  this  character  to  him  in  his  medi- 
atoriarcapacity  and  iuiman  nature  only,  and  others  to  his 
original  existence  and  his  divine  nature;  but  all  of  them  be- 
lieve in  his  peculiar  sonship,  and  in  his  essential  divinity^ 
all  ttf  them  hold  that  he  is  at  once  the  Son  of  GxmI,  and  him- 
self also  God. 

*What  an  absurdity,  you  will  say,  is  this! — The  Sou  of 
God — liimself  God! — How  can  he  be  the  Son  of  himself!* 
Uiiitaiians  are  perpetuidly  stumbling  at  this  stumbling  stone.. 


ir 

and  casting  it  in  the  way  of  others.  They  impose  upon 
themselves  and  upon  otliers,  by  a  species  of  sophistry,  by 
which  no  wise  man  ought  to  be  deceived.  In  this  trite  ob- 
jection, as  is  very  common  with  you  in  other  instances,  you 
beg  the  main  question  in  debate.  Only  admit  the  Trinita- 
rian distinction  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  the  pretend- 
ed absurdity  vanislies  at  once.  If  there  are  in  the  Godhead, 
three  Persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  each  of 
these  three  in  inseparable  union  with  the  other  two  is  God; 
then  there  is  no  absurdity  in  saying  tliat  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  the  Son  of  God,  and  himself  God.  This  does  not  sup- 
pose, or  imply,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  himself j  it  only  imports 
that  he  is  the  Son  of  the  Father. 

Neither  does  his  being  Son  imply  inferiority  in  nature  to 
the  Father.  On  the  contrary,  it  imports  sameness  and 
equality  of  nature.  Was  not  David  of  the  same  nature  with 
Jesse,  whose  son  he  was,  and  of  equal  attributes  and  dignity? 
Is  not  a  true  and  proper  son  always  of  the  same  nature  with 
his  father?  Jesus  is  called  the  son  of  man,  because  he  par- 
takes of  human  nature  and  is  truly  man.  Why  then  should 
we  not  understand,  that  he  is  called  the  So3!if  or  God,  the 
Only  Begotte  Jr  of  the  Father,  because  he  also  partakes 
of  the  divine  nature,  and  is  truly  God. — It  was  so  under- 
stood by  the  Jews,  to  whom  the  appellation.  Son  of  God,  as 
belonging  to  the  Messiah,  was  familiar.  Jesus  said  to  them, 
*'My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work."  Therefore  the 
Jews  souglit  to  kill  him,  because  he — said  tliat  God  was  his 
Father;  [original,  his  own  or  proper  Father]  ^'making  himself 
^qvAi.  with  God."  They  understood  him  to  call  God  his 
Father,  not  in  a  sense  in  which  angels  and  men  may  call  him 
their  Father,  but  in  a  peculiarly  high  sense;  in  a  sense  which 
made  God  his  natural  Father,  and  himself  in  nature  divine 
and  equal  with  the  Father.  It  was  upon  this  very  ground, 
that  tliey  afterwards  persisted  in  charging  him  with  blas- 
phemy, and  finally  condemned  him  to  death. — ^Jesus  said  to 
Natlianael,  "Before  that  Philip  called  thee,  when  thou  wast 
under  the  figtree,  I  saw  thee.'*  Perceiving  in  this  the  divine 
attribute  of  omniscience,  Nathanael  replied,  "Rabbi,  thou 
art  the  Son  of  God;"  evidently  understanding  this  appella- 
3 


IS 

tion  to  inipoi-t  true  divinity.  It  cannot  reasonably  be  doubt- 
ed, that  such  was  the  understanding  of  Peter  and  of  Thomas, 
and  the  other  disciples,  wlien  they  acknowledged  Jesus  to 
be  "the  Chsist,  thf  Son  of  the  hving  God,"  and  wor- 
shipped him  as  their  "Lord  and  their  God." 

The  same  was  the  understanding  of  the  primitive  Fathers. 
In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  St.  Ignatius,  who  had  con- 
versed with  the  apostles,  says,  "There  is  one  Physician, 
both  fleshly  and  spiritual;  made  and  not  made;  God  incar- 
nate, true  life  in  death;  both  of  Mary  and  of  God;  even 
Jesus  Christ  our  Loi'd."*  This  passage  shews  not  only  that 
the  blessed  martyr  acknowledged  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God,  of 
which  his  epistles  afford  most  abundant  evidence;  but  also 
that  he  understood  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  be  of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father;  that  as 
tlie  Son  of  Mary,  be  was  made,  and  was  man,  as  the  Son  of 
God,  not  made,  and  himself  God.  "If,"  says  Justin  Martyr, 
in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  "If  ye  had  considered 
tJie  things  spoken  by  the  prophets,  ye  would  not  have  denied 
Christ  to  be  God,  who  is  tlie  Son  of  the  tmbegotten  and  ineffa- 
ble God.'^  Gregory  Nyssen,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  W  aterlund.f 
speaking  of  the  lieretic  Eunomius,  says,  "He  says  there  is 
one  only  God  Almighty.  If  he  means  a  Father  under  the 
name  of  Almighty,  he  says  the  same  that  we  do,  and  nothing 
different;  but  if  he  intends  it  of  an  almighty  who  is  not  a 
Father,  lie  may  preach  circumcision  if  he  pleases,  along  with 
his  other  Jewish  tenets.  The  faitli  of  christians  looks  to  a 
Failier.  The  Father  indeed  is  all;  [all  things]  he  is  most 
high,  almighty,  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords.  Whatev- 
er titles  souimI  high  aiwl  great,  they  belong  to  the  Father; 
and  all  things  that  are  the  Father- s  heloiig  to  the  Son.**  The 
argument  is,  a  Father  implies  a  son  of  the  same  nature  and 
attributes. — To  the  same  effect  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
aays,  "The  Father  being  eternal  the  Son  must  be  eternal  too. 
Light  of  Light.  The  names  by  me  mentioned,  [Father  and 
Son]  are  undivided  and  inseparable.  AVhcn  I  named  the 
Father  before  I  mentioned  the  Son,  I  signified  the  Son  in  the 
Father.     If  any  of  my  false  accusers  suspect  that  because  I 

*  Wake's  Apostolic  Fathers.       f  On  the  Timity,  chap,  vi.w 


m 

called  God  Creator  and  Former  of  all  things,  I  made  him 
Creator  of  Christ,  let  him  consider  that  I  hefore  styled  him 
Father,  and  so  tlie  Son  was  included  in  him." 

Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church,  as  might 
be  shewn  at  large  hy  many  quotations.  The  apostles  and 
the  Fathers  held  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  not  only  "in  a 
peculiarly  high  sense,"  but  in  a  sense  the  highest  possible: 
in  a  sense  which  implied  his  true  divinity,  his  being  of  tlic 
same  nature  and  one  with  the  Father. 

IV.  A  plain  scriptural  exhibition  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  may  serve  to  shew  the  fallacy  and  futility  of  many 
of  your  objections  and  representations,  and  the  unsoundness 
and  corruptness  of  your  general  system. 

Dr.  Clark,  as  before  stated,  held  to  a  Trinity  of  Divine 
Persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  "With  the  first  and 
supreme  Cause,  or  Father  of  all  things,"  he  says,  "there  has 
existed  from  the  beginning  a  second  Divine  Person,  which 
LS  his  Word  or  Son." — "With  the  Father  and  the  Son,  there 
has  existed  from  the  beginning  a  third  Divine  Person, 
which  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son."*  Thus 
far  he  agrees  with  orthodox  Trinitaiians,  ancient  and  mod- 
ern, excepting  that  he  makes  the  Father,  separately  comidcr- 
edf  "the  first  and  supreme  Cause  of  all  things;"  and  thus 
far,  with  the  specified  exception,  he  proves  his  doctrine  by 
most  abundant  and  decisive  scriptural  testimony,  establish- 
ing, beyond  all  reasonable  debate,  the  pe^-sonal  distinction, 
and  the  co-existence  before  all  ages  of  the  Divine  Three. 

The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  then,  ai'e  either  three 
Divine  Persons  imited  in  one  Godhead,  or  else  three  separate 
Divine  Beings,  The  fonner  is  the  orthodox  doctrine,  the 
latter  is  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Clark.  But  if  the  three  Divine 
Persons  are  so  many  distinct  beings,  having  each  a  separate 
existence,  then  must  there  not  be  three  Gods? — Dr.  Clark  in- 
deed held,  as  you  correctly  state,  that  "the  Father  alone  is  the 
supreme  God;"  and  this  he  asserts  with  astonishing  assur- 
ance, and  in  tlie  way  of  bcggiHg  the  main  question  which  it 
bclioved  him  to  prove.     Be  it  however  even  so,  that  the  Fa* 

'  Scripture  Doctrine,  Part  II.  Sections  2  nnd  5, 


iher  iiloiie  is  the  mpreme  God;  then  the  other  Divine  Per- 
sons are  two  inferiour  Deities  This  conclusion,  so  ohvious 
and  unavoidahle,  is  neither  denied  nor  directly  affirmed  in 
Dr,  Clai'k's  book,  but  is  favoured  and  forced  upon  the  mind 
by  the  entire  train  of  his  argument.  This  is  the  grand  ab- 
surdity of  his  most  absurd  system.  If  there  was  ever  a 
Tritlieist  in  Christendom,  Dr.  Clark  was  one;  and  if  "the  lib- 
eral christians  in  this  part  of  our  country  agree  substantially 
with  Dr.  Clark,-'  instead  of  being  Unitarians,  they  are 
Tritheists. 

In  opposition  to  this  tritlieistical  scheme,  orthodox  cliris- 
tians  hold  that  the  three  Divine  Persons  are  united  in  one 
Godhead.  This  we  believe  to  be  the  plain  scriptural  doc- 
trine: for  while  the  scriptures  distinctly  reveal  to  us  the  Fa- 
tlicr,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  abundantly  ascribe  to  each 
of  the  Three,  divine  names,  attributes,  works,  and  honours; 
yet  they  assure  us  throughout,  that  there  is  but  one  God, 
and  utterly  preclude  the  doctrine  of  inferiour  Deities. 

Though  the  unity  of  the  three  Divine  Persons  in  one  God- 
head involves  mystery  which,  probably,  no  finite  mind  will 
ever  fully  explore;  yet  the  scriptures  open  to  us  a  vista  of 
this  wonderful  glory.  Jesus  in  his  memorable  intercessory 
prayer  with  liis  disciples,  says,  "Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through 
tlieir  word;  that  they  all  may  be  one;  as  thou  Father  art 
IN  ME  AND  I  IN  THEE,  that  they  all  maij  be  one  in  us.*' 
And  christians  are  abundantly  exhorted  in  the  scriptures  to 
seek  and  preserve  the  most  perfect  unity. — In  what  does  this 
imity  consist?  Undoubtedly  in  being,  as  St.  Paul  expresses  it, 
"perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  tlie  same 
judgment," — "being  knit  together  in  love."  AVhen  christians 
are  thus  in  mind,  in  judgment,  and  in  love,  perfectly  joined 
and  knit  together,  they  are  in  a  most  important  and  interest- 
ing sense  ojie.  They  have  "one  Spirit  and  one  hope; — one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism;  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who 
is  in  tliem  all."  They  have  the  same  views  of  divine  truth, — 
of  God,  of  Christ,  of  the  Holy  Spirit, — of  the  gospel,  of  the 
way  of  holiness  and  life,  of  tlie  kingdom  of  grace  and  of  glo- 
ry; they  love  and  seek  the  same  things;  their  thoughts,  their 


ijeclings,  their  desires,  tlieir  pursuits  are  i]i  liarinony. — The 
more  nearly  christians  think,  and  speak,  and  love,  and  pur- 
sue the  same  things,  and  the  more  intimately  they  are  ac- 
quainted with  each  othei'S  minds  and  hearts,  the  closer  and 
the  more  blessed  is  their  union.  Were  they  perfectly  holyj 
had  they  also  exactly  the  same  thoughts  on  every  subject, 
the  same  views  of  every  object,  the  same  affections  and  re- 
gards towards  every  being  and  thing;  and  had  they  moreover 
a  perfect  knowledge  of  each  others  minds  and  hearts,  their 
union  would  be  most  complete.  Though  a  union  so  complete 
probably  can  never  exist  between  finite  minds,  as  they  will 
always  have  different  capacities  and  degrees  of  knowledge, 
and  can  never  be  perfectly  intimate  with  all  tlie  feelings  and 
thoughts  of  each  other,*  yet  a  union  of  this  kind  does  exist  in 
greater  or  less  degree  among  believers,  and  will  increase  as 
they  are  more  and  more  sanctified  tlirough  the  truth,  and  as 
they  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  of  Christ,  and  of  one 
another,  until  it  attain  its  highest  perfection  in  the  lieavenly 
world. — This  is  the  oneness  into  which  Jesus  prayed  that  ids 
j)eople  might  be  brought,  and  which  he  resembled  to  that 
which  exists  between  him  and  his  Father. 

The  union,  however,  of  Christ's  people,  whatever  resem- 
blance it  may  bear,  falls  infinitely  short  of  the  unity  of  tlie 
ever-blessed  Trinity.  "I,"  says  Christ,  "I  and  the  Father 
are  one."  "Believe  me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Fa- 
ther in  me."  *'No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  on- 
ly begotten  Son,  which  is  in  tlie  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath 
declared  liim."  "As  the  Father  knoweth  me,  even  so  know  I 
the  Father."  "The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  liimself,  but  what 
[but  aSf  Campbell's  Translation]  he  secth  the  Father  do;  for 
what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  like- 
wise." "The  Father  loyeth  the  Son."  **!  love  the  Father."* 
These  passages  express  all  that  is  above  described,  as  com- 
prised in  the  union  of  Christ's  people,  and  vastly  more.— TAe 
^071  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father;  perfectly  intimate  with  the 
Father,  and  with  all  his  mind  and  heart,  ^s  the  Father  knows 
him,  even  so  he  kiio7vs  the  Father,  It  will  not  be  doubted  even 
by  Unitarians,  that  the  Father  knows  the  Son  perfectly,  as 
he  knows  all  other  beings:  knows   him  intuitively;  has  an 

,  *  Johnx,  30.  X,  15.  xW,  11.  v,  19.  iiij  55.  xiv,  31. 


V, 


inuncdiatc,  intifnatc,  complete  perception  of  all  that  is  in  him. 
Even  so  tlien  tlie  Son  knows  the  Father,*  has  an  intuitive 
perception,  an  intimate  and  perfect  knowledge  of  all  his  Fa- 
ther's infinite  mind  and  will.  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  tut  as  he  seeth  the  Father  do.  Such  is  his  union  with 
the  Father,  so  perfectly  one  is  his  will  with  the  Father's  will, 
that  he  cannot  act  separately  or  by  himself^  he  can  do  noth- 
ing but  in  union  with  the  Father,  and  as  the  Father  does. 
But  -what  things  soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the 
Son  [ci/xo;w$]  in  the  same  manner.  Such  is  tlieir  co-operation, 
their  unity  of  will,  and  of  action,  that  all  that  is  done  by  the 
Father  is  in  the  same  manner,  and  at  the  same  time,  done  by 
the  Son.  The  Father  loves  the  Son,  ami  the  Son  loves  tJie  Fa- 
ther, with  perfect,  infinite  love. 

But  if  the  Son  knows  the  Father  even  as  the  Father  knows 
him,  intuitively  and  perfectly;  then  he  knows  all  that  the 
Father  knows.  If  he  can  do  nothing,  otherwise  than  in 
union  with  the  Father;  but  does  all  things  w  hich  the  Father 
does,  and  as  the  Father  docs  them;  then  his  will  and  his  pow- 
er are  the  same  with  the  will  and  the  power  of  the  Father. 
And  if  the  Father  and  the  Son  have  the  same  knowledge  and 
wisdom,  the  same  will  and  power,  and  arc  perfect  in  mutua] 
love;  then  they  must  regard  all  other  beings  and  things  with 
the  same  views,  the  same  feelings,  and  the  same  purposes. — 
The  Father  is  in  the  Son  and  the  Son  is  in  the  Father.  All  the 
infinite  knowledge,  and  power,  and  wisdom,  and  goodness  of 
the  Father  are  in  the  Son.  "In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness 
of  tlie  Godhead  bodily."  "He  is  the  brightness  of  the  Father's 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person."  Therefore  he 
says,  "He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  tlie  Father  also." — 
Such  is  tjie  unity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

Of  the  Holy  Spirit  we  read:*  "The  Spirit  searcheth  all 
things,  yea  the  deep  things  [ru  (ia'^vi,  the  depths]  of  God.  For 
what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of 
man  which  is  in  him?  even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth  no 
man,  hut  the  Spirit  of  God." — The  Holy  Spirit  searcheth  even 
the  depths  of  God.  He  tlien  must  know  the  Father  and  tlie 
Son,   even    as   tliey   know  him.     He  knows  the   things  n\ 

-  I  r-of.  ii,  10, 1 1. 


25 


Uod,  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  knows  what  is  in  the  mail,  tbat 
is,  by  intuition,  by  consciousness.     As  the  spirit  of  a  man 
is  conscious  to  all  that  is  in  him,— knows  intuitively  his  un- 
derstanding, and  will,  and  affections,  his  thoughts,  volitions, 
and  feelings;  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  conscious  to  all  that  is  iii 
God;  not  only  in  himself  personally  considered,  but  also  in 
the  Father  and  in  the  Son:  intuitively  knows  all  the  attri- 
butes, thoughts,  affections,  designs,  and  acts  of  the    God- 
head.—AH  the  knowledge,  then,  all  the  wisdom,  all  the  pow- 
er, all  the  goodness,  which  are  in  the  Father  and  in  the  Son, 
are  also  in  the  Holy  Spirit.     Accordingly  he  is  made  known 
to  us,  as  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  of  knowledge,  of  grace 
and  of  holiness,  of  comfort  and  of  fellowship;  who  reveals 
the  mind  and  will  of  God  to  men, — "convinces  the  world  of 
sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment,— renews  whom  he  will 
after  the  image  of  God,  and  dwells  in  all  the  saints, — acts  in 
concurrence  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  great  econ- 
omy of  redemption,  and  carries  into  effect  the  glorious  de- 
signs of  divine  wisdom  and  n  ercy.     *«When  he  the  Spirit  cf 
truth  is   come,"  says    Christ,  «he  shall  guide  you  into  all 
truth:  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  but  whatsoever  he 
shall  hear  that  shall  he  speak."     He  shall  not  act  by  himself 
alone,  but  only  in  union  with  the  Father  arid  the  Son.    -"He 
shall  glorify  me;  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall  she\» 
it   unto  you.     All  things   that  the  Father  hath  are    mine; 
therefore  said  I,  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  shew  it  unto 
you."'     According  to  the  divine  economy,  all  things  pertain- 
ing to  the  salvation  of  mankind,  are  first  the  Father's,  then 
tlie  Son's,  and  then  the  Holy  Spirit's,  to  be  by  him  dispensed, 
agreeably  to  the  will  of  all  the  Three. 

From  this  plain,  scriptural  view,  it  appears  that  the  unity 
of  the  three  Divine  Persons  is  the  hiehest  and  most  perfect 
possible:  not  merely  a  moral  union,  such  as  exists  between 
holy  men  and  angels,  but  an  esscntiai  07ieness,  such  as  consti- 
tutes one  Godhead.  If  all  the  knowledge,  and  wisdom,  and 
power,  and  goodness  of  the  Fatiier  are  also  in  the  Son  and 
in  the  Holy  Spirit;  then  in  their  nature,  in  tlieir  attributes, 
in  their  designs,  in  their  works,- in  their  blessedness,  in  tlieir 
glory,  tliey  are  one.     They  are  also  essentially  equal.,  each 


24 

to  the  other:  for  all  that  is  in  the  Father,  is  in  the  Son,  and 
in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Wliat  tlie  Father  is,  the  Son  is,  and  the 
lloly  Spirit  is,-  what  the  Father  knows,  the  Son  knows,  aiKl 
the  Holy  Spirit  knows,-  what  the  Father  wills,  the  Son  wills, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  wills^  what  the  Father  does,  the  Son 
does,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  does;  what  the  Father  enjoys,  the 
Son  enjoys,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  enjoys.  They  exist,  and 
act,  and  are  hlessed  forevermore,  as  one  God.  This  ac- 
<;oimts  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner,  for  the  scriptures  as- 
cribing, as  they  do  abundantly  ascribe  to  each  of  the  adorable 
Thr-ee,  the  same  divine  names,  attributes,  works,  and  hon- 
ours. 

In  the  Holy  Trinity,  however,  though  tliere  is  an  essentiji! 
equality,  yet  there  is  order,  and  there  is  subordination. 
The  Fatiier  is  first,  the  Son  is  second,  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
third,  in  order;  and  in  relation  especially  to  the  great  work 
of  redemption,  as  (he  scriptures  most  plainly  represent,  the 
Son  is  subordinate  to  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  both 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  This  sufliciently  accounts  for  the 
pre-eminence  whicli  the  scriptures  assign  to  the  Father,  and 
from  which  Unitarians,  and  even  Dr.  Clark,  most  un- 
warrantably conclude  that  "the  Father  alone  is  the  supreme 
God,"  and  that  tlie  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  arc  inferiour  beings; 
as  if  there  could  be  no  such  thing  asjirst  among  equals,  and 
as  ii subordination  necessarily  implied  inequality;  when,  to  ev- 
ery person  of  the  least  reflection  or  observation,  the  contra- 
ry is  manifest.  This  therefore  might  suffice  for  an  answer 
to  the  hackneyed  Unitarian  objection,  founded  on  such  pas- 
sages of  scripture  as  seem  to  import  an  inferiority  of  tho  Son 
to  the  Fatiier:  an  objection  v.hich  was  answered  in  my  sec- 
ond Letter;  as  it  had  been  before  a  thousand  times  answered; 
but  whi(Jh  nevertheless,  you  bring  forward  in  your  Remarks, 
p.  20,  with  aj)  air  of  assurance  and  shout  of  triumph,  as  if  it 
were  IVesh,  and  new,  and  absolutely  unanswerable;  and  as  if 
it  were  not  at  all  incumbent  on  you  to  answer  our  argument,, 
founde<l  on  the  passages,  in  winch  the  Son  is  represented  as 
being  essentially  etjual  and  one  with  the  Father.  It  may  bo 
well  liowever  just  to  remark  further  and  anew,  that  not  only 
is  the  Son  the  second  in  t!ie  order  of  the  Trinity,  but,  for  our 


25 

redemption,  he  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  took  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  man. 
And  surely  it  is  not  wonderful,  that,  while  in  his  state  of  hu- 
miliation he  appeared  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  should  utter 
expressions,  importing  inequality,-  for  as  man  he  was  une- 
qual, infinitely  unequal  to  God. 

After  Dr.  Clark  and  others,  you  seem  very  fond  of  repeat- 
ing, that  "the  Father  alone  is  the  supreme  Godj"  and  "we 
dare  not,  we  dare  not,"  you  earnestly  say,  "approach  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  only  living,  the  only  true  God." — There  was 
occasion  in  old  time  for  the  serious  interrogation,  "TVlll  ye 
accept  his  Person?  Will  ye  contend  for  God?"  Let  me  entreat 
you.  Sir,  not  to  imagine,  that  you  do  honour  to  the  Father, 
by  refusing  to  honour  the  Son.  The  Father  does  not  exist 
"alone,"  nor  is  he  alone  tlie  supreme  God.  Existing  in  es- 
sential, inseparable  union  with  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spii'it, 
whom  he  loves  with  infinite  delight,  it  is  only  in  union  with 
them,  being  himself  in  tliem  and  they  in  liim,  that  he  is  the 
supreme  God.  Neither  does  the  Son  exist  alone,  nor  is  he 
separately  considered,  "the  only  living,  the  only  ti'ue  God." 
But  existing  in  essential,  inseparable  union  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  in  them  and  they  in  him,  he  is  the 
living  and  ti'ue  God, — "the  true  God  and  eternal. 
xiFE."  We  therefore  dare  not,  we  dare  not  refuse  to  honour 
him,  even  as  we  honour  tlie  Father.  Tlie  Holy  Spirit  also, 
in  essential,  inseparable  union  with  the  Father,  and  the  Son, 
he  in  them  and  they  in  him,  is  the  living,  true,  and  supreme 
God;  and  being  so  revealed  to  us,  there  was  no  occasion  for 
an  express  command  to  worship  him,  as  there  was  for  one  to 
worsliip  Christ  in  his  mediatorial  character.  There  are  not 
wanting  examples,  however,  in  the  scriptures  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  being  religiously  invoked.  And  in  that  very  institu 
t ion,  by  which  we  are  initiated  into  the  cliristian  community, 
a  solemn  act  of  worsliip  is  prescribed,  to  be  done  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  union  with  the  other  Divine  Persons.  The  high 
command  is,  "Go,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  NAME  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Shall  men  then  dare  to  "put  asunder  what  are  joined 

together"  in  the  very  vanie  and  imiwr  of  God: 
4 


*«Llaistiaiiitj,''sa>s  the  Bisliop  of  Umliaiu,*  whom  you 
very  justly  style  the  "prolbuiul  Butler,"  "Christianity  is 
not  only  ah  external  institution  of  natural  religion,  and  a  new 
promulgation  of  God's  geneial  providence,  as  rigliteous  gov- 
ernor and  judge  of  the  world;  but  it  contains  also  a  revelation 
of  a  particular  dispensation  of  providence,  carrying  on 
by  his  Son  and  Spirit^  for  the  recovery  and  salvation  of  man- 
kind, who  are  represented  in  Scripture  to  be  in  a  state  ofRvis. 
And  in  consequence  of  this  revelation  being  made,  we  are 
commanded  to  be  baptized,  not  only  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
but  also  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  other  obliga- 
tions of  duty,  unknown  before,  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are  revealed. — The  essence  of  natural  irligion  may  be  said 
to  consist  in  I'eligious  regards  to  God  the  Father  Almighty; 
and  the  essence  of  revealed  religion,  as  distinguished  from  nat- 
ural, to  consist  in  religious  regards  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Glwst.  Jlnd  the  obligation  we  are  under,  of  paying  these  relig- 
ious regards  to  each  of  these  Divine  Fersons  respectively,  arises 
from  the  respective  relations  which  they  each  stand  in  to  us. 
How  these  relations  are  made  known,  whether  by  reason  oi- 
revelation,  makes  no  alteration  in  the  case;  bemuse  the  duties 
arise  out  of  the  relations  themselves,  not  out  of  the  manner  in  which 
we  are  informed  of  them.  The  Son  and  Spirit  have  each  his 
proper  office,  in  that  great  dispensation  of  Pro^  idence,  the 
redemption  of  the  world;  the  one  our  Mediator,  the  other  our 
Sanctifier.  Does  not  then  the  duty  of  religious  regards  to  both 
these  Divine  Persons  as  immediately  arise,  to  the  view  of  reason, 
otitofthe  vei'y  nature  of  these  offices  and  relations,  as  the  inward 
good  will  and  kind  intention,  which  we  owe  to  our  fellow 
creatures  arises  out  of  the  common  relation  between  us  and 
them.  If  therefore  Christ  be  indeed  tile  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  i.  e.  if  Christianity  be  true;  if  he  be  indeed  our 
Lord,  our  Saviour,  and  our  God, — no  one  can  say  what  may 
follow,  not  only  the  obstinate,  but  the  careless  disregard  to  him 
in  those  high  rclations.\ 

•  Analogy,  Part  II.    Chapter  I.  Sec.  2. 

t  ''It  is  the  ever  blessed  Trinitj'  we  iavoke,"  says  Dr.    Sherlock,   "when   t\s 
pray,  Oitt'  Father,  w/)/cA  art  in  /teavcn.    Tov  as  they  are  inseparably  One  Goi, 


27 

This,  Sir,  I  deem  a  very  sufficient  answer  to  what  you  Lave 
so  boldly  and  unwarrantably  objected  to  the  worship  of  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spiiit,  both  in  the  body  of  your  Remarks, 
page  20,  and  in  your  Note,  page  44,  where  you  take  it  upon 
you  to  speak  to  us,  as  you  are  not  a  little  accustomed  to  do, 
iii  the  style  and  the  tone  of  "a  master  of  Israel"  as  fiillows: 
'"We  find  not  one  passage  in  the  scriptures  commanding  us 
to  worship  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  not  one  prece- 
dent which  authorizes  such  worship,  and  while  we  feel  our- 
selves bound  to  exercise  christian  candour  towards  those  who 
have  adopted  this  form  of  w  orship,"  (i.  e.  the  great  body  of 
oi-thodox  christians  in  all  ages!)  "we  are  not  without  solemn 
apprehension,  that,  in  this  respect,  they  are  guilty  of  irrcA^- 
erence  towards  the  word  of  God,  and  of  preferring  to  it  the 
commandments  and  inventions  of  men." — We  ought  doubtless 
to  listen  attentively  to  the  voice  of  serious  admonition,  from 
whatever  quarter  it  may  come;  but  I  can  assure  you,  Sir, 
I  am  by  no  means  convinced  that  the  many  thousands  of  holy 
men  in  the  orthodox  church  of  Christ,  who,  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles  to  the  present,  have  w  orshipped  the  Father, 

so  they  are  the  inseparable  Object  of  our  worship;  since  this  great  mystery  of  a 
Trinity  in  Unity  is  so  plainly  revealed  to  us,  we  cannot  worship  this  one  Supreme 
(Jod,  but  we  must  direct  our  worship  to  all  tlie  three  Divine  Persons  in  the 
unity  of  the  same  Godhead;  for  we  do  not  worship  this  one  Supreme  God,  un- 
less we  worship  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost:  and  therefore  whether  we  invoke 
each  Person  distinctly,  or  pray  only  to  God,  by  the  name  of  the  most  High  God, 
or  by  the  name  of  Father,  or  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  it  is  all  one; 
for  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  is  the  One  Supreme  God,  and  the  entire  Object 
of  our  worship:  and  whoever  worships  one  God,  but  not  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  does  not  worship  the  true  God,  not  the  God  of  the  Christians.  Before 
this  was  so  plainly  revealed,  it  was  sufficient  to  worship  One  Supreme  God,  with- 
out any  conception  of  the  distinct  Persons  in  the  Godhead;  but  when  it  is  plainly 
revealed  to  us,  that  this  One  Supreme  God  is  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
whoever  does  not  worship  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  does  not  worship  the 
true  God;  for  the  true  God  is  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  there  is  no  God 
besides  him;  which  I  would  desire  our  Unitarians  (as  they  falsely  call  themselves) 
and  our  Dcisis  carefully  to  consider.  Tf  any  thing  be  fundamental  in  religion,  ii 
is  the  worship  of  the  One  true  God,  and  if  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  be  this 
One  true  God,  those  who  worship  a  God,  who  is  not  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  do  not  worship  the  true  God,  and  that  I  think  is  the  true  notion  of  idola- 
try. So  that  these  men  are  so  far  from  being  christians,  that  I  cannot  see  how 
(hey  are  worshippers  of  the  true  God:  which  should  at  least  make  them  con- 
cerned to  examine  this  matter  with  more  care  and  less  prejudice  than  they  have 
yet  done." — Vindieattou  of  ihe  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.    Sec.  VI. 


28 

Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  have  been  "valiant  for  the  truth  upon 
the  earth,"  and  <'siione  as  lights  in  the  world*'  have  had  loss 
reA'erence  for  the  word  of  God,  than  those,  who,  from  age  to 
age,  have  either  "gone  ont  from  them  because  thej-  were 
not  of  them,"  ov  else  have  laboured  more  "privily,"  to  intro- 
duce new  doctrines,  subversive  of  their  lioly  faith  and  wor- 
ship. 

You  say,  p.  18,  "We  do  indeed  object  to  the  Trinity  that 
as  it  is  often  stated,  it  is  an  unintelligible  proposition;  and 
we  say,  that  it  is  out  of  our  power  to  believe  a  projwsition 
of  which  we  do  not  kmxv  the  meaning.'"  In  p.  23,  you  rep- 
resent the  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  the  union 
of  the  Divine  and  human  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ,  as 
mere  "phrases  which  cannot  be  defined,  Mhich  convey  to 
common  minds  no  more  meaning  than  words  of  an  unknowii 
tongue,  and  present  to  the  learned  only  flitting  shadows  of 
thought,  instead  of  cleai*  and  steady  conceptions."  And  ex- 
pressions to  the  same  effect  are  scattered  imsparingly  in  all 
your  pamphlets,  and  in  most  Unitarian  writings.  I'iie  de- 
sign is  obvious. 

But,  Sir,  do  you  believe  no  proposition  of  which  you  do 
not  know  the  meaning?  Take  the  proposition  whicli  you  and 
other  Unitarians  would  make  the  single  essential  article  of 
the  christian  creed:  Jesns  is  the  Chnst,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God.  Do  you  understand  the  meaning  of  this  proposition? 
It  is  plain  from  what  has  before  been  exhibited,  that  you  do 
not.  You  do  not  know  who  or  what  Chnst  is:  whether  a 
created,  or  an  uncreated  being;  whethei-  a  ci'eature  m  hose  ex- 
istence had  a  beginning,  or  a  demigod,  or  a  "somewAo/,"  who 
existed  from  eternity.  As  little  do  you  know  the  meaning  of 
the  appellation,  the  Son  of  God.  You  "carry  with  you  in- 
deed an  impression,  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  in  a  ])ecul- 
iarly  high  sense,"  but  in  what  sense  you  do  not  understand. 
According  to  your  own  statement  then,  you  do  not  believe 
the  proposition,  that  "Jesus  is  tlie  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  liv- 
ing God!"  Do  not  believe  what  you  hold  to  be  the  single  es- 
sential article  of  the  christian  faith! — Take  another  very 
simple  proposition,  w  hich,  though  you  v\ill  not  iillow  it  to  be 
essential,  holds    nevertheless   a  distinguished  place    in  the 


29 

christian  scriptures:  Christ  died  for  our  sins.  Of  this  propo- 
sition you  understand  neither  the  subject  nor  the  predicate. 
Concerning  Christy  the  suhject,  as  already  shewn,  you  ai'e  in 
infinite  doubt;  nor  do  you  any  better  undeistand  the  glean- 
ing of  the  predicate,  died  for  our  sins.  That  some  sort  of 
being  called  Christ,  in  some  sense  died  foi*  our  sins,  you 
seem  to  suppose;  but  what  sort  of  being  he  is,  or  in  what 
sense  he  died  for  our  sins,  you  do  not  know.  This  pi'oposi- 
tion,  then,  according  to  your  declaration,  you  do  not  believe. 
Both  these  scriptural  propositions,  Jesus  is  the  Christy  and 
Christ  died  for  our  sins,  are  "phrases  which'*  to  your  mind 
"convey  no  more  meaning  than  woi'ds  of  an  unknown  tongue,, 
and  present  only  flitting  shadows  of  thought  instead  of  clear 
and  steady  conceptions."  It  is  so  also,  it  should  seem,  in  re- 
gard to  many,  if  not  most  other,  important  scriptural  propo- 
sitions. 

I  shall  not  however  concede,  that  the  case  is  the  same  with 
ns  in  regard  to  the  Trinity.  I  do  believe  that  we  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  proposition,  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit  are  tiivee  Divine  Persons  in  one  God.  To  remove 
a  stumbling-block  out  of  the  way  of  Unitaiians,  we  have  in- 
deed said,  that  we  use  tiie  term,  person,  because  we  have  no 
better  word;  and  that  we  are  not  tenacious  of  the  name,  pro- 
vided we  have  the  thing.  But  this  accommodating  conces- 
sion you  attempt  to  ridicule.  The  term,  person,  ijideed,  when 
applied  to  created  beings,  denotes  an  intelligent  agent,  who 
has  a  separate  existence.  In  this  particular  respect,  \\  e  do 
not  consider  the  term  as  applicable  to  the  Father,  Son,  oi* 
Holy  Spii'it.  For  myself,  however,  I  have  not  the  least 
diflBculty  in  applying  the  term  to  each  of  the  Divine 
Three.  I  do  believe  tiiat  though  they  have  not  each  a 
separate  existence,  but  are  all  essentially  usiited  in  one  God; 
yet  they  are  really  and  truly  intelligent  agents,  each  possess- 
ing all  divine  attributes,  and  performing  in  union  with  the 
other  two,  all  divine  works.  And  so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  J 
have  as  clear  an  understanding  of  tJie  meaning  of  persoji, 
when  applied  to  the  three  Djvine  agents  united  in  one  God^ 
as  when  applied  to  angels  or  men,  who  liaA^e  each  a  separate 
existence.     I  do  net  see,  nor  do  I  believe  that  you   or   any 


other  man  can  shew,  why  three  Divine  Persons  may  not  so 
exist  as  to  be  one  God,  as  well  as  three  human  persons  so  as 
to  be  tijree  men;  nor  why  the  one  God  may  not  exist  in  three 
PersoiLS  as  well  as  in  one. 

By  no  means  do  I  admit,  that  we  do  not  know  the  mean- 
ing of  the  proposition,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  three  Divine  Persons  in  one  God.     It  is  a  proposition  af- 
firming a  plain  matter  of  fact;  and  the  matter  of  fact  we  un- 
derstand and  believe.    The  scriptuics  reveal  to  us  tiie  adora- 
ble Three,  distinctly,  and  by  name;  to  each  of  the  Three  they 
ascnbe  divi)ie  names,  attributes,  works,  and   honours;  and 
yet  they  assure  us  that  Jeliovah  our  God  [Alcim,  Gods]  is  one 
Jehovah.     From  the  scriptures  then   we  leani,  and  under- 
stand, that  there  is  a  Father,  a  Son,  and  a  Uoly  Spirit:  that 
the  Father  possesses  divine  attributes,  and  is  tlierefore  God; 
that  the  Son   possesses  divine  attributes,  and    is  therefore 
God;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  also  possesses  divine  attributes, 
and  is  therefore  God;  and  that  tlie  divine  Three  so  exist  to- 
gether as  to  he  one  God.     Now  what  is  there  in  all  this 
which,  as  matter  of  fact,  we  do  not  understand? — If  you  say 
we  cannot  understand  now  tlu'ee  divine  Persons  can  so  exist 
as  to  be  one  God,  that  is  quite  another  thing;  a    thing   not 
contained  in  the  proposition;  and  therefore  not  necessary  to 
he  understood,  in  order  to  the  doctrine  being  understood,  and 
believed.     The  proposition  does  not  pretend  to  declare  the 
nature  or  manner  of  the  union;  but  merely  affirms  the  fact. 
And  this  we  understand,  as  well  as  you  understand  the  sim- 
ple proposition,  tJiere  is  a  God,     Hoiv  there  can  be  a  Godj.  or 
how  he  exists,  you  do  not  understand.     You  may  have  mucJi 
to  say  about  self-existence,  necessary  being,  infinity,  and 
eternity,  but  you  comprehend  none  of  these  things. — So  of 
other  facts. — God  is  omnijiresent;    but  how    he  is  in  every 
place,  you  do  not  understand.    God  is  omniscient;  but  how  he 
knows  all  things,  you    do   not  understand.     God  made  tite 
worlds  out  of  nothing;  but  how  he  made  them  you  do  not  un- 
derstand.    Your  soul  and  body  are  united  in  one   man;   but 
how  they  are  united  you  do  not  kiiow.     You  think;  but  liow 
yon  camiot  tcli.     You  walk;  but  how  yina*  will   moves  your 
body,  you  caniiot  rxplain.     The  sun  warms  the  earth;  bqt 


hoxv?  Vegetables  grow  out  of  the  ground;  how?  Animals  are 
nourished  by  food;  how? — There  is  no  end  to  this  sort  of 
statement  an(i  inquiry;  for  you  do  not  know  how  any  thing 
exists,  or  moves,  or  acts.  You  understand  and  you  believe  the 
plain  matters  of  fact;  but  how  things  can  be  so,  is  utterly  be- 
yond yom-  power  to  comprehend. 

I  do  not  deny,  but  have  freely  admitted  that  there  is  mys- 
tery in  the  Trinity.  The  mystery,  however,  does  not  lie  in 
the  matter  of  fact,  as  stated  in  the  proposition,  that  three  Di- 
^ine  Persons  are  one  God,  or  that  the  one  God  exists  in  three 
Divine  Persons;  for  this  is  revealed  with  sufficient  clearness. 
The  mystery  lies  in  something  beyond;  something  not  con- 
tained in  tlie  proposition;  something  not  i-evealed,  but  about 
V,  liich  there  may  be  endless  speculation  without  any  satisfac- 
toi-y  results.  It  is  so  with  respect  to  e^  ery  thing  else.  The 
being  of  God,  in  the  simplest  statement  of  the  truth,  involves 
mystery  upon  mystery  in  unlimited  accumulation.  Yet  a 
plain  unsophisticated  man  finds  no  difficulty  in  understanding, 
or  in  believing  the  proposition,  there  is  a  God.  No  more 
does  he  find  any  difficulty,  in  understanding,  or  in  believing 
the  proposition,  that  God  exists  in  three  persons. 

You  may  very  well,  therefore,  spare  yourself  the  concern 
which  you  would  seem  to  feel  for  common  chi'istians.  The 
plain  humble  christian,  who  reads  his  Bible  much  more,  and 
to  much  better  purpose,  than  the  wise  men  of  the  world  by 
whom  he  is  despised,  finds  that  in  that  sacred  book  all  divine 
attributes,  works,  and  honours  are  ascribed  to  the  i'^ather,  who 
gave  the  Son  to  die  for  him;  that  the  same  divine  attributes, 
works,  and  honours  are  ascribed  to  the  Son,  his  adored  Re- 
deemer and  Saviour;  and  the  same  to  the  Holy  Spiiit,  his 
gracious  Sanctifier  and  Comforter.  He  therefore  under- 
stands that  tlie  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  three 
Divine  Persons  in  one  God:  and  accordingly  he  believes, 
loves,  and  adores;  undisturbed  by  the  metaphysical  and  dia- 
lectical speculations,  and  the  critical  and  sophistical  subtili- 
ties  of  men,  who,  not  content  with  the  truth  as  divinely  re- 
vealed, bewilder  themselves,  and  labour  to  involve  others,  in 
endless  perplexities  and  mazes: — Just  as  plain  men  under- 
stand, believe,  and  act  upon,  other  traths  and  facts,  clearly 


presented  to  their  minds;  while  speculatists  and  philosophers, 
unable  to  account  how  tilings  can  be  so,  employ  themselves 
in  raising  endless  difficulties  and  objections;  until  one  denies 
the  existence  of  matter,  another,  the  existence  of  created  spir- 
its, a  third,  the  existence  of  a  God,  and  thus  between  them 
all  contrive  to  annihilate  the  universe.  It  is  as  true  now  as 
ever  it  was,  and  as  much  a  reason  of  holy  tiiankfulness,  that 
the  ♦<things  which  are  hidden  from  the  wise  and  prudent  ara 
revealed  unto  babes."  "The  meek  he  will  guide  in  judg- 
ment; the  meek  he  will  teach  his  ways." 

Tije  objection  of  mystery,  wliich  you  and  otlier  Unitarians 
are  perpetually  urging  against  the  Trinity,  might  be  urged, 
and  has  been  urged,  with  equal  reason,  and  with  equal  force, 
against  all  the  piincipal  doctrines  of  religion,  both  natural 
and  revealed.  Jf  we  are  to  fly  before  this  objection,  we  must 
fly  not  only  from  orthodoxy  to  unitarianism,  but  from  uni- 
tarianism  to  Deism,  from  Deism  to  atheism,  and  from  athe- 
ism to  universal  skepticism.  If  the  pretensions  of  the  "ra- 
tional christian"  to  superiour  wisdom,  because,  to  avoid  mys- 
tery, he  denies  the  Trinity,  are  well  founded;  then  for  the 
same  reason,  the  deist  is  wiser  than  the  rational  christian, 
the  atheist  is  wiser  than  the  deist,  and  the  universal  skeptick 
is  the  wisest  man  of  all.  And  upon  this  scale,  I  suppose, 
the  pretensions  to  wisdom  are  actually  graduated. 

"That  this  is  a  very  mysterious  doctrine,"  says  Bishop 
Porteus,  "wc  do  not  deny;  but  it  is  not  more  so  than  many 
tither  doctrines  of  the  christian  revelation,  which  we  all  ad- 
mit, and  which  we  cannot  reject  without  subverting  the 
foundati(ln,  and  destroying  the  very  substance  and  essence  of 
our  relis-ion.  The  miraculous  birth  and  incarnation  of  our 
blessed  Lord,  his  union  of  the  human  nature  with  the  divine, 
bis  redemption  of  mankind,  and  his  expiation  of  theirsiiis  by 
his  death  on  the  cross; — these  are  doctrines  plainly  taught  in 
scripture,  and  yet  as  incomprehensible  to  our  finite  undcr- 
standings,  as  tlic  doctrine  of  three  Persons  and  one  God. 
J?ut  wiiat  we  contend  for  in  all  these  instances  is,  that  these 
n»ystcries,  although  confessedly  above  our  reason,  arc  not 
contrary  to  it.  This  is  a  plain  and  well  known  distinction, 
ii\v\  in  the  present  case  an  incontrovertible  one.     No  one  for 


instance  can  say,  that  the  supposition  of  three  Persons  in  one 
God  is  contrary  to  reason.  We  cannot,  indeed,  comprehend 
isuch  a  distinction  in  the  divine  nature^  but  unless  we  know 
perfectly  wiiat  that  nature  iSj  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  say 
that  such  a  distinction  may  not  subsist  in  it  consistent  with 
its  unity. — Let  not  then  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel  ever  be  a 
rock  of  offence  to  you,  or  in  any  degree  shake  the  constancy 
of  your  faith.  They  are  inseparable  from  any  religion,  that 
is  suited  to  the  nature,  to  the  wants,  and  to  the  fallen  state  of 
such  a  creature  as  man. — Laying  aside  ail  the  superfluity  of 
learning,  and  all  the  pride  of  human  ^\isdom,  let  us  hold  fast 
to  the  profession  of  our  faith,  without  wavering  and  without 
cavilling  at  what  we  cannot  comprehend. — Let  us  i-esolutcly 
beat  down  every  bold  imagination,  every  high  thing  that  ex- 
alteth  itself  against  the  mysterious  truths  of  the  gospel; 
bringing  into  captivity  every  thought  to  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  and  receiving  with  meekness  the  ingrafted  word, 
which  is  able  to  save  our  sotds."* 

No,  Sir,  it  is  not  for  "flitting  shadows  of  thought,'*  tliat 
we  contend;  it  is  for  most  substajitial  I'caiities.  It  is  for 
three  Divine  Persons,  of  illimitable  perfection  and  glory, 

•  On  Matt.  Lee.  xxiv.  Does  not.  Sir,  the  Bishop  of  London  in  this  passage, 
show  as  much  of  the  meekness  of  wisdom,  and  of  tlie  spirit  of  tiie  gospel,  as  jour 
fraternity  of  Unitarians,  who,  you  say,  p.  J9,  "always  declare  that  Scripture  with 
one  voice  disowns  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  of  nil  the  fictions  of  theo- 
logians, the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God  has  perhaps  the  least  counte- 
nauce  from  the  Bible!" 

In  this  connexion  you  have  seen  fit  to  entertain  the  jjuLliek  with  a  brief  his- 
tory of  your  own  mind  in  relation  to  the  Trinity;  in  whiih  we  are  presented 
with  an  instance,  similar  to  too  many  others,  of  a  struggling  and  gradual  decline 
from  the  principles  of  an  orthodox  education:  principles  to  whose  influence  Dr 
Priestly  vei-y  frankly  ascrihes  the  habits  of  seriousness  and  devotion  which  re- 
mained with  him,  even  after  he  had  adopted  sentiments  confessedly  less  condu. 
cive  to  such  habits.  Did  I  think  it  proper  thus  to  obtrude  personal  history,  I 
couid  give  you  a  very  diffei-ent  account.  I  could  tell  you  of  one,  who  well  remera- 
bers  the  day  of  enchanting  temptation, — when  his  feet  stood  on  slippery  places, — 
when  he  felt  himself  strongly  impelled  to  follow  the  ignes  fatid  of  unitarian  illusion; 
and  who  devoutly  hopes  never  to  forget  the  gracious  hand  which  arrested  Jiis 
coui'se,  guided  him  back,  and  as  be  humbly  trusts,  fixed  his  feet  on  "«  stone,  a 
tried  stone,  a  sure  foundation"  But  rather  would  1  take  leave  to  recommend 
to  your  very  serious  perusal  a  little  book  entitled  The  Force  of  Truth. 
5 


who  Iiave  manifested  towai-ds  us  exceeding  riches  of  grace 
and  mercy,  and  to  whom  we  owe  su})ienie  and  cverhisting 
love,  and  gratitude,  and  liomage,  Tliough  we  cannot  by 
seai-ching  find  them  out  unto  perfection;  yet  we  can  thank- 
fully receive  the  testimony  which  they  have  condescended  to 
give  us  respecting  themselves  and  one  another,  and  humbly 
adore  the  inelFablc  and  incomprehensible  glory  which  they 
have  opened  to  our  view.  In  the  most  Holy  Three  in  One, 
we  see  what  can  never  be  seen  in  a  single  Divine  Person: — 
we  see  a  society ^  infinitely  perfect  and  blessed. — When  we  turn 
our  thoughts  from  the  Trinity  to  one  Divine  Person,  inhabit- 
ing eternity  in  solitary  existence,  we  find  it  impossible  to  con- 
ceive how  he  can  be  happy.  We  can  form  no  conception  of 
happiness  without  love,  nor  of  perfect  happiness  where  love 
has  not  an  adequate  object.  But  the  most  exalted  creatures 
are  infinitely  below  the  Deity;  the  whole  created  universe  is 
as  nothing  in  comparison  with  him.  If  then  he  existed  in 
one  solitai-y  person,  where  could  he  find  an  adequate  object 
of  infinite  love,  and  how  could  he  be  infinitely  happy? — When 
we  contemplate  the  Trinity,  a  far  different  view  is  presented 
to  our  minds.  God  is  i^ove.  The  three  adorable  Persons, 
unlimited  in  all  perfections  and  excellencies,  inhabit  eternity 
together;  dwell  everlastingly  in  each  other,  in  mutual,  perfect, 
unmcasurable  love.  Thus  infinitely  happy  themselves,  they 
unitedly  delight  in  communicating  happiness  to  their  crea- 
tures. Their  own  society  of  boundless  love  and  boundless 
happiness,  is  the  archetype  and  centre  of  that  holy,  and  bless- 
ed, and  numberless  fellowship  of  angels  and  of  the  redeemed 
from  among  men,  who  ai'e  to  be  "gathered  together  in  one," 
around  the  throne  of  everlasting  glory,  with  immortal  joys, 
and  unceasing  praises. — Call  this.  Sir,  mystery,  njysticism, 
or  what  you  please; — it  is  a  theme  on  which  my  mind  delights 
to  dwell;  and  which  I  cannot  exchange  for  the  solitary  Deity, 
and  the  philosophical  heaven  of  Unitarians. 

V.  In  pp.  13,  14,  and  19,  of  your  Remarks,  I  find  the  fol- 
lowing passages.  "Witii  respect  to  the  atonement,  the 
great  body  of  libcriil  christians  seem  to  nic  to  accord  precisely 


35 

with  the  author  of  "Bible  Ncwf,"  or  rather  hotli  agree  very 
much  with  tlie  profound  Rutler.  Both  agree  that  Jesus 
Christ,  by  his  sufferings  and  inteiressioii,  obtains  forgiveness 
for  sinful  men,  or  that  on  account,  or  in  consequence  of  what 
Christ  has  done  and  suffered,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  avert- 
ed from  the  penitent,  and  blessings  forfeited  by  sin  are  be- 
stowed. On  the  question,  whicli  is  often  asked,  now  the 
death  of  ClirivSt  has  this  blessed  influence,  they  generally 
think  that  the  scriptures  have  given  us  little  light,  and  that 
it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  accept  the  kind  appointment  of 
God,  without  constructing  theories  for  which  the  materials 
must  be  chiefly  borrowed  from  our  own  imagination," — "It  is 
indeed  very  true  that  Unitarians  say  nothing  about  iufnite 
atonement,  and  they  shudder  when  they  hear,  what  Dr. 
AYorcester  seems  to  assert,  that  the  ever  blessed  God  suffer- 
ed and  died  on  tiie  cross.  They  reject  these  representations, 
because  they  find  not  one  passage  in  scripture  which  directly 
asserts  them  or  gives  them  support.  Not  one  word  do  we 
hear  from  Christ  or  his  apostles  of  an  wjhitte  atonement.  In 
not  OHC  solitary  text  is  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  in  obtain- 
ing forgiveness,  ascribed  to  his  being  the  Supreme  God.  All 
this  is  theology  of  man's  making,  and  strongly  marked  with 
the  hand  of  its  autlior." — Upon  these  passages  I  have  to 
remark: 

1.  If  there  is  presented  to  tiie  mind  of  man  a  subject  which, 
more  than  any  other,  should  repress  tbc  spirit  of  haughty 
disdain  and  fastidious  cavil,  it  is  that  of  the  atonement.  If 
ever  man  should  feel  and  show  profound  humility, tenderness, 
and  reverence,  it  is  when  he  approaches  the  cross  of  Him, 
who,  though  he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  (iod, 
yet  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  imto  death. — 
However  much  of  a  spirit  ojjposite  to  the  meekness  and  low- 
liness of  Christ  might  be  deemed  suitable,  to  give  effect  to 
personal  invective  and  popular  harangue;  but  little  of  it 
surely  was  necessary,  in  making  a  mere  statement  of  your 
sentiments  on  the  most  affecting  and  awful  of  all  subjects. 

2.  You  are  not,  I  ]>resunu',  entirely  unacquainted  v.ith  tlie 
history  or  the  M'ritings  of  the  primitive  age  of  the  christias 


36 

church.  II'  not,  )  on  doubtless  know  that,  in  that  ago,  botli 
Pagans  and  Jcm  s  reproached  the  clirlstians  with  worsliipping 
a  cruc'ified  God;  and  that  the  christians  did  not  shrink  froni 
tlie  reproach,  nor  think  it  incumbent  oj»  them  to  make  the 
offence  of  the  cross  to  cease.  "Permit  me,''  said  St.  Ignatius, 
when  on  his  way  to  the  scene  of  his  martyrdom,  '"Permit  me 
to  imitate  t!ie  passion,  (die  sUiTcrings.)  oi  my  God." — <«Con- 
sider  the  times;  and  expect  Him  ivlio  is  above  all  timet  eternal^ 
inripble,  though  for  our  sakcs  made  risiUc;  impalpable,  and 
impassible^  yet  for  ws  subjected  to  sufferings;  enduring  all  man-. 
Iter  of  ways  for  ojir  salvation.'* — At  this  you  "shudder."  Yet 
I  suppose  the  blessed  martyr,  who  had  been  conversant  with 
the  apostles,  and  by  them  ordained  a  bishop,  had  some  right 
understanding  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  crucified.  You 
"shudder"  too  at  the  words  of  Paul,  in  their  plain  and  genu- 
ine sense.  "Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  Godj  but  made  himself  of  no  repu- 
tation, and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was 
m&dc  in  tlie  likeness  of  man,  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  he  humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death 
even  the  death  of  the  cross."  For  in  these  very  words,  I 
summed  up  my  statement,  to  which  you  refer  when  you  speak 
of  your  shuddering;  and  more  than  what  is  expressed  in 
them  I  have  no  where  expressed  on  this  topick.  And  yet  I 
must  b(  licve  that  Paul  as  well  understood  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  crucified,  as  any  Unitai'ian  of  this  enliglitened  age. 
This  same  apostle,  in  his  pathetick  address  to  the  elders  of 
Eplicsus,  according  to  our  common  reading,  said,  "Feed  the 
church  of  God  Vvhii  h  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."* 
The  apostle  John  aJso,  according  to  our  common  reading, 
says,  "flrreby  ]»crccivc  we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid 
clown  hislif'  i'cv  us."f  If  by  various  readings  you  might  be 
Justified  in  doubting*  the  genuineness  of  the  common  reading 
in  tiiese  passages;  yet  I  must  bo  allowed  to  deny  that  you 
are  warranted  in  the  bold  assurance,  with  which  you  as- 
sert that  the  scriptures  give  no  "support  to  these  represcnta- 

*  Acts  XX,  C*?.  j  1  John  iii;  IC 


tions."  On  tbc  contrary,  I  contend  that  tlic  scriptures  do 
represent  and  affirm,  that  the  same  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  God 
as  well  as  man,  suffered  and  died  on  the  cross. 

The  phrase  '*the  ever  blessed  God  siililnrd  and  died  on  the 
cross,"  is  not  mine.  I  said  that  we  <*iiold  Jesus  Christ  to  bo 
God  and  man  united  in  one  person,  and  that  tliis  one  complex 
person  suffered  and  died."  Do  you  perceive  no  difierence, 
Sir,  between  these  two  statements?  If  not,  I  beg  you  to  con- 
sider the  subject  until  you  understand  it,  before  you  again 
undertake  to  state  what  I  "seem  to  assert."  There  is  the 
same  sort  of  fallacy  in  this  representation  of  yours,  as  in  that 
which  makes  us  say,  that  '-Jesus  Christ  is  ti^e  only  11  vnig.  the 
only  true  God."*  We  do  not  say  nor  hold,  tiat  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  only  living  and  true  God,  separate  iVoni  ilie  Father  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  So  neither  do  wc  say,  that  tlic  ever  blessed 
God,  separately  from  man,  suflered  and  died;  but  we  do ^av 
that  Jesus  Christ,  as  God  and  man  in  one  person,  did  suffci 
and  die.  Tliis  we  believe  the  scriptures  most  fuiiy  teach, 
and  at  this  we  verily  think  no  christian  ought  to  shudder. 
"\Vg  know  however  that  this  fundamental  d')ctnne,  tiiis  corner 
stone,  has  always  been  to  some  a  stumbling  block,  and  tu 
others  foolishness. 

You  seem  to  have  a  very  particular  ar.tipathy  to  *'an 
injinite  atonement.**  'J'his  phrase  again  is  not  mine,*  noi- 
do   I   know    why   you  should  iiitroducc   it  in  tlic   manner 

*  Of  the  same  sort  of  fallacy  you  avail  youisclf  LabiUiuHy.  A  very  striking  in- 
stance of  it  occurs  in  your  note,  p.  4f),  wisere  you  take  U[;on  you  to  say,  that  "Uiii- 
tarianism,  besidt-s  bciug  directly  affirmed  in  particular  jiassages,  runs  througli  the- 
■whole  scriptures,  appears  on  the  ■whole  current  of  seuti-aieut  and  language  in  the, 
t)ld  and  the  Xew  Testament."'  This  impobiiig  assertion  could  liave  been  made 
only  under  cover  of  an  ambiguity.  You  would  not  venture  to  assert,  in  unequivocal 
terms,  that  in  a  single  "passage"  of  scripture  it  is  "directly  affirmed"  that  there  is 
hnt  one  person  in  the  Godhead,  nov  ihat  this  doctrine  "runs  through  the  wliole 
scriptures,"  &c.  But  the  scriptures  do  teach,  directlj*  in  particuiia*  passages,  and 
implicitly  throughout,  tliat  there  is  but  one^God;  and  to  tiiis  doctrine  you  here  ap- 
ply the  anibigiious  term  Unitarianisrn,  as  if  Trinitarians  iitid  to  iv;oie  Ciods  thau 
one.  This,  Sir,  is  practising,  as  an  honest  man  should  be  very  cautious  of  doirif. 
In  opposition  to  another  assertion  of  yours  in  tliis  sanae  connex'on,  I  should  feel 
perfectly  safo  in  aflirming,  tiiat  tlie  doclrine  of  the  Triiiity,  instead  of  dcpendli;"- 
for  support  "on  a  small  nuiijber  of  disconnected  te\ts,"  "runs  through  tiie  whiil' 
scripturoSj"  a;id  pervades  the  entire  system  of  revealed  trutli. 


\()ii  have  done,  Tiirlc?.?!  it  were  to  make  an  crrouccjus  im- 
pression, as  if  the  (lucstion  between  us  were,  whether  the 
atonement  was  wfinilc.  The  qup<ition,  however,  is,  wheth- 
er tlie  death  ol"  Clu'ist  was  ti'iily  and  properly  an  atone- 
ment,— an  cxpiatorif  sacrifice  for  sin.  Let  this  question  first 
be  determined,  and  then  if  you  please  atteiid  to  the  other. 
Your  ])ractire  of  perpetually  confoundinsj  thin.qs,  and  varying 
and  misstating  the  points  in  debate,  wliatever  other  purpose 
it  may  serve,  certainly  can  servx  no  good  purpose. 

In  reply  to  your  peremptory  assertion,  that  <«in  not  one 
solitary  text  is  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  atonement  ascribed  to 
his  being  t!ic  supreme  God,"  I  affirm  that  tlie  scriptures 
certainly  do,  not  in  one  solitary  text  only,  but  in  many  pas- 
sages, and  with  one  voice,  ascribe  the  efficacy  of  Christ's 
atonement,  to  Jiis  divine  ihgnitij.  Not  to  cite  particular  pas- 
sages, it  may  suffice  to  refer  to  tJic  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
entire;  in  which  the  apostle  sets  out  with  asserting  and 
proving  tJie  divine  dignitij  of  the  Son;  and  then  upon  this  firm 
basis,  founds  the  doctrine  of  his  high  priesthood,  and  his 
propitiatory  sacrifice.  In  the  course  of  iiis  argument  he  uses 
such  expressions  as  these:  <»Such  an  High  I'l'iest  became 
us."*  ''Neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  hut  by  Iiis 
owii  blood,  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  ob- 
tained eternal  redemption  for  us.  For  if  the  blood  of  bull« 
and  of  goats,  and  tlie  ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  un- 
clean, sauctiricth  to  the  jjurifying  of  the  flrsli;  how  much 
more  shall  the  Idoud  of  Jesus  Christ,  tvhq,  Ih-ongh  the  eternal 
Spirit,  ojfercd  hinuiclf  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience 
from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God.''"'-\  In  vain,  Sii",  do 
}()u  attempt,  by  bold  and  random  assertions,  to  escape  from 
the  solenin  inference,  so  odious  to  many,  that  we  lu-e  sinners, 

■*  IIpI..  vii,  CO. 

t  Hell,  ix,  1-2,  13,  1  i.  "^Vhcn  tlie  Son  of  Goil,  who  is  one  with  the  Fatlicr, 
takfs  flesh  :in(l  blood  upon  him,  and  becomes  (iod  rnauitVst  in  the  flesh,  horc  liod 
and  man  an;  unitrd  in  one  com[>lex  person,  and  hereby  we  enjoy  an  all-imfTicienl 
Savionr,  a  Ifcconciler  beyond  all  exception,  a  sacrifice  of  atonement,  e(inal  to  the 
gtiilt  of  our  ti-ansj^rcssions.  And  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  it  is  on  this  account  one 
Hpostle  says,  "God  redeemed  the  church  with  his  own  blood;"  nnd  another  assert  s, 


naturally  in  a  ruined,  condemnctl  state,*  and  that  in  ordn*  to 
our  salvation,  there  was  need  of  such  a  propitiation  for  our 
sins,  as  the  scriptures  set  forth  in  Jesus  Christ  crucified. 

3.  "With  respect  te  Christ's  atonement,  you  say,  the 
great  body  of  liberal  christians  seem  to  mc  to  accord  precisely 
with  the  author  of  "Bible  News,"  or  rather  both  agree  very 
much  with  the  profound  Butler."  Most  devoutly,  Sir,  do  1 
wish  that  we  had  more  evidence  of  this,  than  that  it  ^^scems'* 
so  to  you.  Most  gratefully  should  I  rejoice  to  know,  that 
you,  and  others  of  your  liberal  brethren,  really  agree,  on  this 
momentous  point,  with  Bishop  Butler.  But  why  refer  to  this 
distinguished  writer?  Did  you  mean  to  make  tiie  impression 
that  your  orthodox  opponents  here  materially  differ  from  hhii? 
The  truth  is,  that  my  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
is  so  exactly  in  agreement  with  his,  that  my  readers  might  he 
ready  to  suppose,  that  when  making  it,  I  had  his  book  open 
before  me.  I  wish  you  had  seen  fit  to  quote  him  at  large, 
and  recommend  his  sentiments  to  your  readers.  As  you  have 
not  done  it,  I  will  take  leave  to  make  a  quotatio)i. 

After  a  very  lucid  and  forcible  arguuicnt  to  shew  the  rea- 
sonableness and  credibility  of  the  doctrine,  Bisiiop  Butler 
proceeds  to  say,*"  "The  particular  manner  in  which  Christ 
intei'jjosed  in  the  redemption  of  the  world,  or  his  office  as 
Qtiediatar  in  the  largest  sense  between  God  and  man,  is  thus 
represented  to  us  in  the  scripture.  *J{e  is  the  light  of  the  world;* 
the  rcvealer  of  the  will  of  God  in  the  most  eminent  sense. 

"Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of  Go<],  that  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us."  And  I  do 
not  yet  see  sufficient  reason  why  that  expression  of  St.  Paul  may  not  be  referrt-d 
to  in  the  same  sense,  "How  much  more  sliall  the  blood  of  Jesus  Chiist,  who  lluough 
the  eternal  spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience," 
iic.  If  the  eternal  Spirit  signify  the  divine  nature  or  Godhead,  which  dwelt  bodily 
in  the  man  Jesus,  then  the  dignity  of  his  complete  person  is  made  the  foundation  of 
the  value  of  his  blood.  This  dignity  of  the  Godhead  which  was  personally  united 
t«  the  man  who  suffered,  spreads  an  infinite  value  over  his  sufferings  and  merit; 
and  this  renders  them  equal  to  that  infinite  guilt  and  demerit  of  sin,  which  would 
have  extended  the  punishment  of  man  to  everlasting  ages.  The  infinite  dignity 
of  the  person  suffering  answers  to  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  person  offended,  aud 
»o  takes  away  the  necessity  of  the  everlasting  duration  of  it."  Wntts'a  SciinonS 
on  Atonement. 

•  Analogy,  Part  II.  Chap.  V.  Sec.  6. 


40 

ill:  IS  A  ritoPiTiATORY  SACRIFICE^*  the  Lamb  of  God;] 
Hnd  as  he  voli'.ntiii  ily  offered  liimsclf  up,  he  is  styled  our 
]ii,:;Ii  pviest.t  And,  vvhich  seems  of  peculiar  weight,  he  is  de- 
scrihcd  b(  fore  liand  in  the  Old  Testament,  under  the  same 
character  of  a  priest,  and  an  expiatory  victim.^  And 
whereas  it  is  ohjcctcd,  that  all  this  is  merely  by  way  of  allu- 
sion to  the  sacrifices  of  the  Mosaick  law,  the  apostle  on  the 
contrary  afiirms,  that  the  law  was  a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things;^  and  that  the 
priests  that  offer  gifts  according  to  Hie  law — serve  unto  the  ex- 
ample and  shadow  of  Jieavenly  things,  as  Moses  was  admon- 
ished of  Go(U  when  he  was  about  to  mahe  the  tabernacle.  For 
sec,  saith  he,  that  thou  make  all  things  according  to  the  pattern 
shewed  to  thee  in  the  mount;**  I.  e.  the  Levitical  priesthood  was 
%  a  sliadow  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  in  like  manner  as  the 
tabernacle  made  by  jMsjsps,  was  according  to  that  shewed 
him  in  t'.ie  mount.  I'hc  priesthood  of  Christ  and  the  taber- 
Tiacle  in  the  mount,  were  the  originals;  of  tlie  former  of  which 
tlie  Levitical  priost!ioo<l  was  a  t}  pe,  and  of  the  latter  the  tab- 
ernacle made  by  Moses  was  a  copy.  The  doctrine  of  this 
epistle  then  plainly  is,  that  titc  legal  sacrifices  were  allusions  to 
ihe  great  and  fnial  atonement;  to  be  made  by  the  blood  of 
Ckiiist;  and  not  that  this  was  an  allusion  to  those.  Nor 
can  any  thing  be  more  express  or  determinate  than  the  fcdloM'- 
ing  passage.  It  is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats 
f.lwidd  take  away  sin.-  JVherefore,  when  he  cometh  into  the 
world  he  saith,  sacrifice  and  o^ering,  i.  e.  of  bulls,  and  of 
goats,  thou  wouldst  not,  hit  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me. — Lo 
I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God. — Uy  which  will  wc  are  sanctified, 
through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  rt//.''f f 
Arid  to  add  one  passage  more  of  the  like  kind.  Christ  was 
once  afjercd  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  and  unto  them  that  look  for 
him  shall  he  appeal'  the  second  time,  without  sin,  i.  e.  without 

''  Tloin.  iii,  25,  and  v,  It.     1  Cor.  v,  f.     Eph.  v,  2.     1  John  ii,  2. 
i  John  i,  21),  3Ci,  ami  llii-()uo;hout  ilie  book  of  Ravclation. 
,  'I'hroiighout  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

§  Isii.  liii.     Dan.  ix,  24.     Ps.  ex,  4.  ^  llcb.  x.  1. 

■*'  Ileh.  Yiii,  4,  5.  tt  'ieb.  x,  4,  5,  7,  9,  10. 


41 

BEARING    SIN    AS    HE    DIB  AT  HIS  FIRST  COMING,  BY  BEING 

AN  OEFERING  FOR  IT,  witlioiit  liaving  oiu*  udquihes  ag-aiu 
laid  iipou  hiiriy  witliout  bciiij^any  more  a  sin  offering;  luiio 
them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  the  second  time,  without 
sin  unto  salvation,^  Nor  do  the  inspii-cd  \\Titers  at  all  coji- 
fine  themselves  to  this  manner  of  speaking  concerning-  the 
SATISFACTION  of  Christ,  but  declare  an  efficacy  in  wiiat  lie 
did  and  suffered,  additional  to,  and  beyond,  mere  instnictiuu, 
example  and  government,  in  gi*eat  variety  of  expiession." — 
The  Bisliop  in  this  connexion  proceeds  to  quote  nearly 
tlurty  texts,  many  of  which  arc  the  very  same  which  are 
quoted  in  my  Second  Letter,  to  shew  that  ^^  c  have  i-edemp- 
tion,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  the  death  of  Christ,  as 

AN   EXPIATORY    SACRIFICE. 

I  repeat  it,  Sir, — most  gratefully  should  I  rejoice  to  know, 
that  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  agree  with  Dr.  Batler  in 
tiiese  ortiiodox  views  of  the  atonement.    But, 

4.  It  is  to  be  lamented,  that  you  have  thought  it  ncressai'y 
to  take  especial  care,  not  to  leave  the  matter  in  a  general,  un- 
qualified reference  to  Butler;  but  proceed  to  qualify,  until 
you  fritter  the  doctrine  to  atoms,  and  scatter  it  in  the  wind. 
»'Both  agree,  you  say,  that  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  siilferings 
tind  intercession,  obtains  forgiveness  for  sinful  men,  or  iant 
on.  account,  or  in  conseq.uence  of  what  Christ  has  done 
and  suffered,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  averted  from  the  peni- 
tent, and  blessings,  forfeited  by  sin,  ai'c  bestowed,"  Such  arc 
the  ambiguous  words  wliich  you  delight  to  use.  Undoubt- 
edly, Sir,  when  penning  this  studied  sentence,  you  woe  })cr- 
fcctly  aware,  that  Unitarians  of  the  lowest  class,  even  such 
as  make  Jesus  Christ  a  mere  fallible  and  ])ec€able  man,  and 
utterly  discard,  and  irreverently  ridicule  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  would  make  no  difficulty  of  giving  to  this  repre- 
sentation their  general  assent.  They  would  readily  admit, 
that,  *nn  consequence  of 'what  Christ  has  done  and  suiTci-ed, 
tlic  punishment  of  sin  is  averted  from  the  penitent,  and  bless- 
ings, forfeited  by  sin,  are  bestowed;"  as,  with  equal  readi- 
ness, and  in  the  same  sense,  they  would  admit,  tijat  t]ie  same 
benefits  are  conferred,  in  consequence  of  what  V^'d  a!id  othci' 

*  Hcb.  XXV  lii. 

a 


i^ooil  men  liavti  ('one  iini'  siiffcrrt'. — But  is  this,  Sir,  '^agi^S- 
ing  veiT  mu<  li  with  tho  ]);'ofoun(l  Butler!"*  I  (leop!y  rcgl^t 
to  say,  that  J  (an  See  in  tliis  stateniMit  wry  littlP  evidence  of 
a  true  l»oIi«^f  in  i\n-  .atoiKMlicnt.  At  any  rate,  Wlirthor  j-ort 
Lelirvc  in  tlic  at;>iicnK'nt  in  any  pvnper  sciisp,  rtr  m)t,  it  is  la- 
picntakly  nianKVst,  nnt  from  t'lis  pasaa^  «5itv>  ^"t  from  uni- 
form rcprcsftitalions  tliroughoiit  yotir  tiirec  pamphlets,  that 
you  consider  the  atonement  as  comparAtiTely  nninipoVtant* 
and  hold  IJuit  men  v^ho  Utterly  itject  it^  may  nevertlieleSS  be 
very  good  christians. 

There  is  a  wide  diSTeithc^  behvteM  ackiiDwkdging  Jesuf^ 
Cliristj  mei-ely  as  a  propliet  and  a  preacher  of  rightBOusne.<?s, 
^vlio  laboured,  interceded,  and  dird,  to  impart,  to  confirm^ 
and  to  impress  divine  instruction,  that  mi^n  migiit  he  induced 
to  rqmii  and  trust  in  a  merciful  God  ft)r  pardon  and  etemat 

*  It  18  ngtei'ing,!  ac1tno:\vle(]ge,ve'ry  nrmcS  witfi  th*  popfilai*  Piite,  wKrtm  ^XJssJWv 
yoii  \vA<\  in  your  eye  as  your  model,  and  who  in  a  Srrnion,  lately  repuWishtd  with 
the  high  imprijnatiir  of  the  libei-al  party,  says,  "Give  me  but  the  fact,  that  Christ 
is  the  re/swrectiun,  and  the  life,  and  ixPVAiy  it  as  you  wjll.  Give  me  bu* 
this  single  truth,  th.it  e/er7m^ ///f  is  the  gift  of  God  through  Jesi>s  Christ  vur. 
Lord  mid  SaxiuTn;  and'  I  shiiil  be  perfectly  easy  viih  respect  to  the  contrary 
opinions  which  are  entertahied  about  the  dignity  of  Christ;  about  his  nature,  per- 
son, and  offices;  and  the  manner  in  which  he  saves  us.  Call  iiim,  if  jou  please, 
simply  a  man,  endowed  with  extraoixlinary  powers;  or  call  him  a  snperaiigeliGk 
I'clng,  who  appeared' in  human  nature  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  our  sal- 
vation; or  SMV,  (if  \ou  can  admit  a  thouglit  so  shockingly  absurd!)  that  it  was  the 
second  of  ihrte  co-equal  persons  in  the  Godhead,  fijrnung  one  person  with  a  hu- 
man soul,  that  came  down  from  heaven  ai^d  suffered  and  died,  on  the  cross:  Saj, 
»hat  be  saves  us  merely  by  being  a  messenger  from  God  to  reveal  to  us  eternal  life, 
and  to  ?onfer  it  uiion  us;  or  say  on  the  contrary,  that  he  not  only  leveah  to  us 
eternal  lite,  and  eonfcrs  it  upon  us,  but  has  obtained  it  for  us  by  offering  himself 
ft  propitiatory  siicrifice  on  the  ci-oss,  and  making  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  the 
Tieity  for  our  sins:  1  shall  think  such  differences  of  little  moment,  provide<l  the 
fact  is  allowed,  that  Christ  did  i  Lsc  from  the  dead,  and  will  raise  us  from  tlie  dead; 
and  that  %ll  iighttous  penitents  will,  tiirough  God's  grace  in  liim,  be  accepted  and 
ma'le  happy  for  ever." — So  then  it  is  "of  very  litOe  moment,"  whether  we  wor- 
ship Chri^^t  as  Ciod>  01"  I'egard  him  only  as  a  mere  man; — whether  we  recognise  his- 
ilealh  as  a  propilvtor)'  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  or  only  as  one  instance  among  many 
nf  mere  martyi-doni; — whether  with  bleeding  hearts  we  come  to  his  cross,  hum- 
bly relying  on  the  merits  of  his  death  for  pardon  and  life,  or  trust  in  ourselves  that 
we  are  "righteous  penitents!"  By  no  dread  of  reproach  can  1  he  deterred  from 
dtclarin;,,  thatneithei-  tjie  untne  uor  the  popularity  of  Dr.  Price,  nor  of  any  other 
man  o;'  society  of  meu,  ought  to  protect  sentiments  like  these  from  the  ilccidetJ 
reprobation  of  £  very  person  who  bows  at  I'lie  name  of  Jesus,  or  hopes  for  sahatlca 
ihrwgh  faith  in  his  blood. 


4.3 

fefcj  aiid  believing  on  lain,  not  only  as  a  luopljet  anil  a 
j^rcackcr,  but  also  as  opr  gi'eat  IJigli  Priest,  by  whose  blood 
we  have  iMJifcinptipn,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  our 
Eurcty,  v.  ho  is  the  einl  of  the  law  for  righteousness  unto  every 
cinc  that  belicvelh  on  liimo  This  is  a  main,  a  I'adical  \)ohii 
tjptwcen  the  oi-tboilox  and  Unitarians.  Yoii  acknowledge 
Jesus  as  a  projiljctand  a  preacher  of  Hghteonsness,  and  make 
such  an  acknowled^'enient  of  him  essential  to  tkc  clu'istian 
«anje;  but  his  priesthood  and  suretyship,  with  hjs  pi-opitiatory 
saciifice,  and  vicarious  rig'hteousness,  you  eithei*  dQv.y,  or 
kold  to  be  non-essential  aiid  of  little  importance.  A  merc^ 
scan,  for  aught  that  appears,  might  have  been  aut'jorized  and 
inspired  to  do  all  which  Jesus  did  in  the  w  ay  of  revealing, 
preaching,  and  attesting  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  for  tiio 
instruction  of  mankind;  indeed  Paul  did  mor^  in  this  way 
than  Jesus  in  person  did;  and  so  long  as  you  hold  this  to  be 
all  w  liich  was  essential  to  our  salvation,  it  is  not  strange  that 
you  do  not  see  it  necessary  that  the  Saviour  should  he  God 
as  well  as  nnin. 

But,  Sir,  do  not  the  scriptures  dwell  infinitely  more  on 
Clu'ist's  office  as  priest,  tlian  on  his  office  as  -prophet?  AVaii 
it  not  to  him,  chiefly  as  the  great  High  JPriest,  who  by  the 
t)ne  offering  of  himself  was  to  chtrin  eternal  redemption  for 
4ta,  that  tlie  Mosaick  economy  entii-e,  and  rji  the  institute^ 
*jacrifices^  from  t4ie  beginning  of  tlie  world  to  his  ijicainialion, 
looked  as  their  antitype?  Did  not  his  harbinger  John  pub- 
Hckly  aiuiounce  him  as  tue  Lamb  of  God  that  takcth  (iivay 
ike  sin  of  the  world?  Was  not  salvation  by  his  death,  as  ?i 
propitiatioji  for  sin,  the  burden  of  apostolick  preaching?  Was 
it  not  the  express  design  of  tlie  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
at  large,  to  establish  his  priesthood,  and  the  necessity  and 
-<^lficacy  of  las  sacrifice?  And  do  not  the  scriptures  most 
abundantly  r<eprcsent,  that  the  faith  w  hich  it  requires  of  us, 
hi  not  merely  an  assent  to  Ids  divine  instructions,  but  also 
and  especially  a  fiducial  trust  in  his  atoning  blood? 

By  what  authority  then  can  any  one  either  deny  the  atone- 
ment, or  represent  it  as  doubtful,  or  (tf  little  importance.  When 
the  scriptures  so  constantly  insist  on  the  propitiatory  sacri- 
ll;e  of  our  great  High  Priest,  and  so  directly  found  upon  it 


44 

ihe  doctrine  of  justification  unto  life,  and  all  the  immortal 
liopes  of  man^  who  can  be  authorized  to  set  this  foundation 
aside,  or  represent  it  as  not  essential  to  the  christian  faith? 
AVhcn,  from  the  day  the  Saviour  was  promised,  it  was  only 
hy  sacrifice,  typical  of  the  great  and  final  atonement  to  be 
made  by  him,  that  fallen  men  were  allowed  to  draw  near  to 
God,  and  without  shedding  of  blood  there  was  no  remission; 
are  we  now,  since  the  Saviour  has  come,  and  the  atonement 
has  been  made, — are  we  now  to  be  taught  that  the  fact  of 
the  sacrifice  is  doubtful,  that  the  truth  of  it  is  unimportant, 
that  faith  in  it  is  unnecessary,  and  tliat,  if  we  please,  we  may 
utterly  reject  it,  and  boldly,  and  witliout  guilt  or  danger,  ap- 
proach the  holy  God,  trusting  in  ourselves  as  "righteous 
penitents!" 

If  it  is  not  necessary  to  believe  in  Christ's  priestly  office 
and  work,  why  is  it  necessary  to  believe  in  him  as  a  prophet 
and  messenger  of  God?  If  we  may  innocently  and  safely  deny 
his  death  to  be  propitiatory,  why  may  we  not,  with  equal 
innocence  and  safety,  deny  his  instructions  to  be  divine? 
Many  who  have  denied  revelation  altogether,  have  neverthe- 
less acknowledged  the  pre-eminent  excellence  of  the  character, 
and  of  the  instructions  of  Jesus;  and  have  been  men  of  dis- 
tinguished talents,  and  of  cxemidary  morality.  Wliy  is  not 
this  sufficient?  If  they  acknowledge  the  morality  of  tiie  gos- 
pel to  be  excellent,  and  hold  the  necessity  of  repentance  of  all 
sin,  and  of  a  life  conformed  to  the  principles  of  righteousness 
and  virtue;  why  is  it  necessary  for  them  to  believe  that  Jesus 
and  the  apostles  were  divinely  commissioned  and  insjjired? — 
Is  not  the  difference  between  deists  of  this  description  and 
unitarians  vastly  less,  than  between  unitarians  and  orthodox 
christians?  Such  deists  agree  with  unitarians  in  acknowledg- 
ing Jesus  as  the  most  excellent  of  all  teachers;  both  profess 
to  reverence  his  instructions;  both  hold  the  necessity  of  i*e- 
pentancc  and  a  good  life;  both  believe  that  ^'righteous  peni- 
tents" will  be  saved  from  "the  punishment  of  sin,"  and  re- 
(  cive  from  a  God  of  infinite  goodness  and  mercy  the  reward 
of  everlasting  life;  and  both  agree  in  rejecting  the  propitiato- 
ly  sacrifice  of  Clirist,  and  in  refusing  to  trust  for  pai-don  and 
salvation  in  the  vicarious  merits  of   his   death. — They  are 


45 

siear  to   each  other, — next  door  neighbours. — Bit  b-iweea 
them  both  and  orthodox  christians  the  distance  is  great. 

If  in  any  case,  a  surety ,  or  a  substitute  is  proposed  on  one 
part,  and  not  accepted  or  consented  to  on  the  other,  tlic  pro- 
pos.al  in  that  case  fails,  and  the  debtor,  or  the  offender  is  still 
answerable  solely  in  his  own  person.  God  proposes  Clirist 
crucified  to  us  as  our  surety,  our  substitute,  our  propitiation; 
it  is  by  faith  in  him,  as  thus  set  fortli,  that  we  consent  to  the 
proposal.  If  we  acknowledge  Christ  as  oui-  surety,  our  sub- 
stitute, the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  believe  ou  liim  as 
such,  we  consent  to  God's  gracious  proposal,  and  there  is  a 
settled,  a  fixed  agreement  or  covenant  between  him  and  us; 
an  agreement  or  covenant  respecting  the  cancelling  of  our 
sins,  our  renewal  after  the  image  of  God,  and  tiie  entire  con- 
cern of  our  eternal  salvation.  If  we  do  not  thus  acknowl- 
edge and  believe  on  Christ,  but  deny  and  reject  his  pi-opitia- 
tory  sacrifice;  the  momentous  pi'oposal  fails  as  to  us:  we 
are  without  a  surety,  v»ithout  a  ransom  for  om*  souls,  with- 
out the  benefit  of  a  propitiation;  and  must  stand  at  the  bar  of 
the  righteous  Judge  solely  upon  our  own  personal  footing! — 
*'lf  1  forsake  the  gospel  of  Christ  and  his  atonement  for  sin, 
whitiier  shall  my  guilty  conscience  fly  to  find  a  better  relief. — 
Nature  shews  me  no  way  to  recompense  the  justice  of  God 
for  my  innumerable  sins.  Nature  shews  me  nothing  which 
God  will  accept  in  the  room  of  my  own  i)trficl  obedience,  or 
in  the  room  of  my  everlasting  punishment.  If  I  Icav^c  thee, 
O  Jesus,  whither  shall  I  go?  Thy  sufferings  are  the  spring 
of  my  hope  of  pardon,  and  my  eternal  life  depends  on  thy 
painful  and  shameful  death. — 0  may  I  ever  maintain  a  con- 
stant exercise  of  faith  on  the  Son  of  God  as  my  great  High 
Priest]  May  I  keep  up  a  lively  and  delightful  sense  of /Ac  tdl- 
sitfficiency  of  Ids  atonement  upon  my  spirit,  that  tins,  which  is 
the  glory  of  my  religion,  may  also  be  the  daily  life  of  my  soul. 
— Let  me  call  to  mind  the  solemn  seasons  of  transaction  be- 
tween Christ  and  my  soul.  Have  I  not  resigned  myself  to  him 
as  an  all-sufficient  Saviour,  to  deliver  me  both  fi*om  the  guiil 
and  the  power  of  every  sin?  Hare  I  not  trusted  in  the  blood  of 
his  atonement,  and  felt  the  quickening  power  of  his  Spirit  as  thr 
fruit  of  his  5/oof?:?  Hns  he  Bot  raised  me  to  a  r.t^w  lif;-?— .1 


4U 

VkHjuUl  rise  to  j:»iii  with  the  blessed  acclamations,  the  holy 
songs  of  the  saints  on  high,  while  tiiey  behold  their  exalted 
Saviour.  Kow  sweet  their  songs!  How  loud  their  acclania-' 
lions!  This  is  the  man,  the  God-man  muo  died  for  me! 
This  is  the  glorious  Person;  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  wasu- 
i.n  ME  FROM  JiY  sixs  IN  H's  OWN  blood!"* — Such,  Sir,  are 
tlie  sentiments,  inspired  by  faith  in  the  atoning  blood  of 
of  Christ*  Where  do  we  find  sentiments  like  these  uttered 
hy  a  Unitaiian.  We  hear  mu(  h  of  their  "talents"  and  their 
^'learning,*'  titeir  "purity"  and  their  "virtues;"  but  little — 
but  nothing — oj'ihcir  gUtrying  only  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ. — A  true  believer  in  Christ's  atonement  never  will, 
never  can  consider  it,  or  represent  it  as  douhlfid  or  nnim- 
poi'tant;  never  will  or  can  admit  any  other  foundation  of 
liope  for  fallen  mankind. 

\I.  After  stating  what  «sec7Ji"  to  >ou  to  be  the  prevjilcnt 
sontimciius  of  tlie  liberal  party,  you  are  pleased  to  say,  p* 
14,  "My  mative  for  making  the  preceding  statement,  is  no 
otlier  tiian  a  desii-e  to  contribute  whatever  may  be  in  mV 
po\Aei'  to  the  peace  of  our  churches.  I  have  hoped  that  by 
luis  representation,  some  portion  of  the  charity  whicii  has 
been  expressed  towards  Dr.  Clark,  and  the  author  of  "Bible 
Nev. s,"  may  be  extended  towards  their  Unitarian  brethren; 
and  that  thus  the  ecclesiastical  division  which  is  threatened 
jniiy  be  averted."  This  may  be  considered  as  tlie  basis  of 
the  fervid  rhapsodies  and  inflammatory  harangues,  with  which 
your  subsetjuent  pages  arc  fsUed;  aitd  in  \vhich  to  a  degi-ee 
seldom  sui-passed,  you  have  shewn  youi-se'lf  vioiejit  for  charity, 
and  "fierce  for  moderation;"  and,  with  little  restraint,  have 
appealed  to  passicms  and  prejudices  to  which  a  wise  man,  en- 
gaged in  a  good  cause,  would  scarcely,  in  the  most  desperate 
extremity,  refer  for  a  decision,  or  apply  for  aid.  In  the  course 
therefore  of  my  remarks,  in  relation  to  this  passage,  I  sludl 
liave  occasion  to  take  notice  of  the  most  important  of  tiie 
many  exceptionable  things,  which  in  your  varied  strains  of 
declamatio.n  you  have  so  copiously  poured  foitii. 

*  Watts. — Sermon  on  Atonement. 


4r 

Ciiarity  ouglit  urKloubtedly  to  be  extended  to  every  class  ot' 
Unitarians,  and  to  all  men.  Kiit  what  is  charity?  It  is  love- 
holy  love: — surii  as  the  everlasting  Father  manifesteil,  when 
he  gave  his  Son  for  the  i-edemption  of  our  ruined  race;  stich 
as  Jesus  Christ  displayed,  when  he  "bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree,"  and  ♦'tasted  death  for  every  man;"  such 
as  the  apostles  exhibited,  when  they  made  a  voluntary  sacri- 
fice of  every  earthly  consideration,  for  the  sake  of  bringing 
men  to  the  knowledge  and  acknowledgement  of  the  truth, 
that  they  might  be  saved.  But  with  all  his  infinite  love, 
God  has  never  regarded  the  errours  of  mankind  as  either  inno- 
cent or  safe;  but  with  awful  majesty  has  borne  bis  decided 
testimony  against  them,  and  declared  that  the  children  of 
men  have  all  gone  aside,  that  destruction  and  misery  are  in 
their  ways,  and  tliat  he  will  bring  to  nought  t!»c  wisdom  of 
this  world.  Jesus  Christ  also,  though  possessed  of  the  same, 
infinite  love,  has  solemnly  testified,  that  "men  love  dai-kncss 
rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  are  evil;"  tlmt  "the 
world  hates  both  him  and  his  Father;" — hates  also  his  true 
followers,  "because  they  are  not  of  tlie  world,  but  he  has 
ciioscn  them  out  of  the  world."*  And  he  exercised  perfect 
charity  when  he  said,  "Wo  unto  you,  scribes,  and  pharisees, 
hypocrites!  for  ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against 
men;  for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  nor  suffer  ih€u\  that  are 
entering  to  go  in. — Yc  build  the  tombs  of  the  proj)!iets  and 
garnish  the  sepulchres  of  the  righteous,  and  say.  If  wc  had 
been  in  days  of  our  fathers  v.e  would  not  have  been  partakers 
with  them  in  the  blood  of  the  prophets/'f — "Yc  arc  of  t!)o 

world !f  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  ye  vsliall  die  in  your 

«ins.":|: — It  was  in  the  spirit  of  pure  and  fervent  charHy,  that 
the  devoted  apostle  of  tlie  Gentiles  so  solemnly  averred:  "i 
say  the  truth  in  Cbrist,  I  lie  not,  my  conscience  also  bearing 
me  witness  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  I  have  great  heaviness 
and  ( outinual  soi'row  in  my  heart.  For  1  could  wish  that 
myself  urre  accursed  from  Clnist,  for  my  brethren,  my  kins- 
men according  to  the  flcssh,  who  are  Israelites." — "For  1  bear 
them  record  tltat  tlicy  have  a  zeal  of  God,  but  not  according 

^  -^iulin  iii,  19;  \ii,  7;  xv>  17, 18,^4,  t  Matt,  xxiii,  13—33.        4  John  viii,  ?".-. 


45 

to  knowicugc.  For  ihcy  hviui:;  ii^iioi'aiit  of  God's  viglileoiw- 
ness,  and  going  about  to  establish  theii*  own  righteousness, 
have  not  submitted  themselves  unto  the  righteousness  of 
God.*'*  In  the  same  charitable  spirit,  he  said  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  "I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that 
called  you  into  the  gra<e  of  Christ,  unto  another  gospel: 
which  is  not  another:  hut  there  are  some  that  trouble  you 
and  would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Christ." — <'0  foolisii  Gala- 
tians,  who  hath  bewitched  you,  that  ye  shoiild  not  obey  the 
Iruth."  «1  would  that  they  were  even  cut  ofl"  that  trouhlt! 
you."|  And  in  the  same  holy  love,  lie  declared  to  the  Corin- 
tliians,  "We  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a  stumb- 
ling block,  and  unto  the  Greeks  fooiishness;":j: — exhoHed  the 
Romans,  "Now  I  l)eseech  you,  brethren,  mark  tlipm  which 
cause  divisions  and  offences  contrary  to  fue  doctrine  which 
ye  have  learned,  and  avoid  them;"(\ — warned  tlie  Co!ossians» 
"Beware  lost  any  man  spoil  you  tiirough  pliilosophy  an<l  ^ain 
deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the 
Avorld,  and  not  afler  Christ;''j| — and  cliprg^d  Timothy,  "ta 
war  a  good  warfai*e,  holding  faith  and  ?.  gocd  conscience, 
which  some  having  put  away,  concerning  taith  have  made 
shipw  reck.  Of  whom,"  he  says,  "a?'t-  Ilymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander, whom  I  have  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  may 
learn  not  to  blaspheme."** — The  disciple  also,  whom  Jesus 
loved  ^^  as  in  the  exercise  of  the  most  enlarged  and  elevated 
charity,  when  he  wrote  as  follows:  "Little  children,  there  are 
many  antichrists: — but  ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy 
One,  and  ye  know  all  things.  I  have  not  written  unto  you, 
because  ye  know  not  the  truth;  but  because  ye  know  it,  and 
that  no  lie,  [no  false  doctrine]  is  of  the  truth," — "Beloved, 
believ^e  not  every  spirit;  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  arc 
of  God;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
world. — Tliey  are  of  the  world;  therefore  speak  they  ot  the 
world,  and  tlie  woild  hcareth  them.  We  are  of  God:  he  that 
knoweth  G(;d  heareth  us.  Hereby  know  we  the  spirit  of 
trutli  and  the  spirit  of  crrour.*' — "Whosoever  transgresselh 
and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hatU  not  God.    He 

*  Rom.  ix,  1—4;  x,  2,  3.        t  Gal-  i,  C— 9;  iii,  1;  v,  12.         +  1  Cor.i,  23. 

^}  Rom.  xvi,  17.  1  Co!,  ii,  8.  **  I  Tim.  i,  18—20, 


49 

that  abidetli  in  tlic  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Fath- 
er  and  tlic  Son.  If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not 
this  docti-inc,  receive  him  not  into  your  liouse,  neither  bid 
him  God  speedj  for  he  that  biddcth  him  God  speed,  is  par- 
taker of  his  evil  deeds."* 

This,  Sir,  is  genuine — divine  charity: — charity,  whicli  can 
discern  between  truth  and  errour;  ^vhich  rejoicetli  in  th"? 
truth,  and  in  the  light,  tlie  happiness,  and  tl»e  holy  fcUoAN  sh.ip 
of  those  who  embrace  and  obey  it;  and,  m  hilc  it  rejects  and 
condemns  errour,  deeply  deplores  the  darkness,  the  danger. 
and  the  delusive  communion  of  those  who  yield  to  its  fascina- 
tions, and  ardently  desires  and  seeks   their  conviction  and 
salvation: — which  adores  the  Lord  Jesus  with  a  reverence  too 
holy  to  trifle  with  his  sacred  institutions,  and  regards  all  men 
with  an  affection  too  benevolent  to  cheer  tlieiu  in  the  ways  of 
destruction.     Yes,  genuine  charity  rejoiceth  in  the  tndh.     It 
is  essentially  love  of  truth;  and  it  regai'ds  God  and   Christ, 
saints  and  sinners,  all  beings  and  tlungs,  according  to  truth. 
It  delights  in  truth  as  the  foundation  of  all  pure  religion, 
genuine  viriue,  and  substantial  happiness; — a.^  of  the  first  im- 
portance to  the  essential  and  everlasting  interests  of  mankiisd. 
In  all  ages  of  tlie  world,  therefore,  it  has  bocn  the  grand  ef- 
fort of  charity  to  convince  men  of  th(  ir  eirours,  to  rescue 
them  from  their  delusions,  and  to  bring  them  to  tiie  knowledge 
of  the  truth.     In  this  arduous  work,  it  has  endured  the  co)i- 
tradictions  and  reproaches,  the    unappeasable  resoitments 
and  vaiied  persecutions,  of  the  eri'ing,  arid  proud,  and  ad- 
verse world.     The  palms  and  crowns,  which  distinguish  the 
hosts  of  holy  martyrs  before  the  throne  of  God  and  tlie  Lamb, 
were  all' v,  on  by  the  labours,  and  sufferings,  and  conflicts  of 
charity,  in  maintaining,  defending,  and  propagating  the  truth 
upon  the  earth. 

How  different  ft'om  this,  in  its  nature  and  in  its  labours,  is 
the  misnamed  charity  for  which  you  contend; — a  charity 
^\hich  is  fondly  indulgent  to  all  errour,  and  inimical  only  to 
the  truth;  which  consists  in  thiidving  or  admitting  that  men 
may  be  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sigiit  of  God,  thougli  they 
utterly  reject  the  gospel  as  a  "cunningly   devised  fable,"  and 

*  I  Jnlin  il,  18—27;   iii,  1— C;  C  Jojin  Q— IJ. 


50 

o«§iil  to  be  Iidil  ill  chrisiiar,  fellowsliij),  ii"  they  only  ackiK/wT- 
cd£?c  that  •♦Jesus  is  the  Christ,"  though  they  disbelieve,  ftiid 
rontcnni  evei-y  essential  doctrine  of  clnistianity.  Tliis  spu- 
rious chanty,  it  ou,^ht  to  be  distinctly  noted,  may  be  possess- 
ed, in  its  utmost  e.\tcii(,  by  th.e  most  unhojy  men;  by  infidels 
t>f  every  species  ui'  uisbelicf,— by  iliiertines  of  every  degree  of 
licentiousness.  It  is  «in  indisputable  fact,  that  the  open  scof- 
fers at  religion,  the  "lovers  of  their  own  selves,*'  the  "proud." 
the  "blasphemers,"  the  "covetous,"  the  "fierce,"  the  "despis- 
crs  of  them  that  are  good,"  can  shew  as  much  of  this  sort  of 
f  harity»  and  clamour  as  loudly  for  it,  as  the  very  best  of  your 
liberal  clirisiiims.  Listen  to  the  pagan  writers  with  whom 
the  primitive  christians  had  to  contend, — to  the  free-thinkers* 
deists,  and  allunsts  of  modern  times, — to  the  "unruly  and 
vain-talkers,"  the  "murinurers  and  complaincrs,"  who  "speak 
evil  of  tilings  that  t!jey  nndcrstand  not,"  and  utter  "great 
s^^eilil7g  words  of  vanity:" — all  these,  while  they  strenuously 
oppose  all  the  efforts  of  holy  love,  both  divine  and  human,  to 
reclaim  men  from  "t];e  crrour  of  their  ^^  ays  unto  the  wisdom 
of  the  just;"  yet  \Nith  one  voice  cry  out  for  charity  and  liber- 
ality, denounce  christians  as  so  uncharitable  and  illiberal  as  to 
deserve  the  execration  of  the  world,  and  charge  upon  them  all 
the  guilt  of  all  the  divisions,  contentions,  and  persecutions,  of 
which  truth  and  religion  have  been  innocently  the  occasion. 
"Are  we  blind  also?"  was  indignantly  said  by  some  of  the 
nia«tci^  of  Israel  to  the  great  Teacher  from  heaven,  who 
would  have  "guided  tlicii'  feet  into  the  way  of  peace."  To 
'the  inspired  apo;stlcs,  to  the  successive  ministers  of  Christ, 
and  to  otliers  who  have  been  A^aliant  for  the  truth  upon  the 
earthy  similar  language  has  been  used,  and  witii  a  similar 
spirit,  in  e^el•y  succeeding  age.  I'he  i)ride  of  man  revolts  at 
the  iniput^ittiou  of  e;  roar,  find  the  passions  take  fire  to  revenge 
the  alleged  insult.  To  conjpose  and  prevent  tlie  strife,  "the 
vsisdoni  of  tjii.v  world"  has  devised  and  proposed,  that  ;dl  re- 
ligious truth  s'oould  be  held  as  matter  of  mere  opinion, — that 
all  rrligioi.s  opinions  should  be  entitled  to  equal  favoin-, — that 
the  acknowlejigcment  oi"  tiii.s  title  should  be  called  charity, — 
and  that  this  chaiity  should  be  regarded  and  inculcated  as  the 
r^v'ionce  ami  sum  of  religion.     Were  this  compact  univei'sally 


SI 

Si'tlopted  and  carried  into  enVct,  the  world,  it  is  imagineij, 
would  be  settled  in  millenniiU  tranquillity,  and  men  vvoidd  be 
left,  without  molestation,  to  follow  their  own  opinions,  to 
worsiiip  their  own  gods,  and  to  pass  on  to  their  final  state  in 
their  own  chosen  w  ays.  All  therefore  who  dissent,  are  to  be 
reg'arded  as  common  enemies,  uncharitablCf  illiberal,  bigattcd 
fanaticks, — men  who  would  turn  the  world  upside  down,  and 
against  whom  charity  calls  for  a  combination  of  all  classes 
and  persuasions.  *<The  system,"  ^  ois  say?  '"of  excluding  from 
christian  fellowship  men  of  upright  lives,  on  accennt  of  Ihcir 
oj;iM«o?is,-^— necessarily  generates  perpetual  discoid  in  the 
church. — Thus  the  wais  of  christians  will  be  pcj'petual. 
Never  will  there  be  peace,  until  christians  agree  to  differ,  and 
agree  to  look  for  the  evidences  of  christian  character  in  t!ic 
temper  and  the  life:"  that  is,  without  regard  to  faith  or  disbe- 
lief.    Tages  31—33. 

Such,  Sir,  is  the  chai'ity  for  which  you  cojft.end,  a\  !tich  you 
roi)resent  as  incomparably  moi-e  excellent  than  faith,  and  to 
which  you  make  no  ordinai-y  pretensions.  But,  high  as  your 
pretensions  are,  yon  arc  eclipsed  in  tiiis  particular,  I>y  deists 
and  atheists,  by  scolfei's  and  libertines. 

You  seem  to  be  aware,  that  the  apostles  v»erc  not  entirely 
in  this  system*  You  desire,  however,  that  we  may  "never 
forget  that  the  apostles  wei'e  inspired  men,  capable  of  mark- 
ing out  with  unerring  certainty  those  who  substituted  anotiier 
gospel  for  the  true,"  p.  27.  In  this  desire  1  cordially  unite 
%\ith  you.  It  onglit  certainly  never  to  be  forgotten,  that  they 
were  inspii*ed  men;  and  tvs  iitlle  should  it  be  forgotten,  that 
by  excluding  from  fellowship  "those,  v»ho  substituted  another 
gospel  for  the  true,"  they  made  it  as  certain  as  the  high  au- 
thority of  inspiration  could  make  it,  that  those  w!»o  do  reject 
the  true  gospel  and  embrace  aiiotlier,  however  their  tempers 
ar.d  lives  may  appear,  are  not  entitled  to  t!»e  privileges  of 
christian  communion.     This  point  tlien  is  decisively  settled. 

But  you  will  say,  Avlio  can  now  pretend  to  inspiration,  and 
Mho,  without  this  gift,  has  a  rigiit  to  decide  what  the  true 
gospel  is,  and  what  is  another.  "Sliow  us  their  [the  apostles] 
successors  and  we  will  ciiccrfiJIy  obey  then:."  Much  is  to  be 
found  to  this  effect  in  all  your  pampidets:  importing  that  no 


5t 

isninspiretl  miiii  can  know,  nor  has  a  right  to  decide,  what  th(? 
true  doctrines  of  tlic  gospel  are,  or  what  arc  false  doctrines; 
and  charging  witli  an  arrogant  assumption  of  "infallibility," 
those,  who  profess  any  assurance  or  certainty,  that,  in  their 
articles  of  faith,  or  their  *»opinions,"  they  are  i  ight.  This 
indeed  seems  to  be  the  very  basis  of  your  system. 

Is  it  however  so,  that  no  uninspired  man  can  know,  nor  has 
a  right  to  judge  what  the  true  gospel  of  Christ  is?  For  what 
purpose  then  were  the  apostles  and  the  prophets  hefore  them 
inspired?  >Vas  it  merely  for  their  own  benefit?  or  at  most  for 
theirs,  and  the  benefit  of  others  of  their  own  times?  For  what 
purpose  then  were  the  revelations  which  weie  communicated 
to  thcjn,  committed  to  writing,  and  transmitted  with  so  much 
care  to  succeeding  generations?  Of  what  use  are  the  scrip- 
tures, if  no  uninspired  man  can  know  with  any  certainty  what 
are  the  doctrines  contained  in  them? — The  celebrated  Hume 
has  asserted,  that  miracles  could  be  of  no  use,  as  attestations 
to  a  divine  revelation,  excepting  to  such  as  were  eye-wit- 
nesses of  thcm^  hecause  no  other  persons  could  have  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  facts.  But  I  believe  that  even  that  gigantick 
adversary  of  the  gospel  never  went  so  far  as  your  argmncnt 
goes:  never  undertook  to  assert  that  a  divine  revelation, 
though  well  attested,  could  never  make  any  doctrine  or  truth 
certain,  excepting  to  inspired  men;  because  no  other  persons^ 
could  ever  know  with  any  certainty  what  doctrines  or  truths 
are  revealed.  Had  he  lighted  upon  this  discovery,  he  would 
have  found  an  argument  against  revelation,  incomparably 
more  available  than  any  \\hich  he  has  urged;  an  argument 
which,  if  correct  in  its  premises,  must  be  decisive  in  its  con- 
clusion: for  unquestionably  a  God  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
goodness  would  never  communicate  a  revelation  to  tlic  world, 
tor  the  instruction  and  faith  of  uninspired  men,  if  none  but 
the  inspired  could  understand  it,  or  attain  to  any  certainty 
in  regard  to  its  doctrines.  Upon  this  Unitarian  principle, 
inspiration,  to  answer  its  purpose,  must  be  continued  through- 
out all  ages;  just  as  Hume  contended  that  miracles  must  be. 

This  point  demands  very  paiticular  attention,  for  it  is  the 
very  hir.geo!i  which  the  question  respecting  fello^vsilip  turns. 

ct  it  then  be  again  distinctly  noted,  that  you  have  found 


5S      ' 

yourself  compelled  to  concede,  that  the  inspired  apostles  did 
exclude  from  fellowship  those  who  embraced  another  sjospcl* 
or  doctrines  or  opinions  subversive  of  the  gospel  of  Ciii  ist* 
This  establishes  the  principle  decisively,  that  it  would  be 
right  to  separate  from  such  now,  could  it  only  be  determined 
what  the  gospel  of  Christ  is,  and  what  another  gospel.  But 
this,  you  contend,  no  uninspired  man  or  body  of  men  has  ii 
right  to  determine.  The  Unitarian  system,  as  set  forth  by 
Mr.  Belsham,  is  clearly  o])posite,  in  every  essential  point,  to 
the  orthodox  system.  Yet  no  uninspii'ed  man  has  a  right  to 
determine,  which  of  these  two  opposite  systems  is  the  ti'ue> 
gospel;  no  one  has  a  right  to  pronounce  either  of  them  false! 
And,  therefore,  the  believers  in  either  of  tliem  have  no  right 
to  separate  from  the  believers  in  the  other! — If  it  be  really  so, 
then  let  us  hear  no  more  of  the  great  Protestant  piinciple,  that 
the  scriptures  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith;  for  instead  of  being 
a  sufficient  rule,  they  are  no  rule  at  all.  They  do  not  enable 
or  warrant  us  to  decide  between  two  systems,  fundamentally 
and  diametrically  opposite,  which  is  true,  or  v,  hether  both  of 
them  are  false.  W  hat  the  gospel  of  Chiist  is,  no  uninspired 
man  can  tell.  If  any  undertake  to  determine,  ar.d  to  pro- 
nounce an  opposite  system  another  gospt-l,  they  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  illiberal  and  uncharitable  men,  "proud  and  arro- 
gant" pretenders  to  "infallibility,"  ignorant  "bigots,"  and 
odious  "persecutors." 

The  question  respecting  fellowship  or  separation  ccrtainh 
resolves  itself  into  this  point.  If  the  scriptures  are  a  suffi- 
cient rule  of  faith,  if  from  them  uninspired  men  can  know 
what  the  doctrines  of  Christ  ai'e,  or  what  the  ti'ue  gos])el  is; 
then  they  have  apostolick,  divine  authority  for  withdrawing 
and  withholding  fellowship  from  those,  who  reject  the  true, 
and  embrace  another  gospel.  If  the  scriptures  arc  not  a  suffi- 
rie)it  rule  of  faith;  if  no  uninspired  man  can  know  what  the 
gospel  of  Christ  is;  then  the  "faith  of  christians  is  ^ain,  and 
our  preaching  also  is  vain;"  and  we  have  yet  to  wait,  in 
gloomy  uncertainty,  in  dismal  darkness,  until  God  in  his 
sovereign  goodness  sliall  again  bless  the  world,,  or  some  por- 
tion of  it,  v\ith  the  girt  of  inspiration. 


54 

riiis  canliiiitl  ciuestiou  oi"  the  suUiciency  oi"  llie  acripturcS 
«)uglit  to  be  considered,  as  liaving  been  long  since  decisively 
settled.  It  is  oise  of  the  principal  questions  which  was  ar- 
dently debated,  n^.ore  than  two  hundred  years  ago,  between 
the  I'rotcstants  and  Papists,*  anil  it  was  little  to  have  been 
expe<  ted  that,  at  this  time  of  day,  professed  Protestants 
would  entrench  themselves  upon  the  giourid,  as  Unitarians 
actually  have  done,*  from  which  the  Papists  have  been  so 
tiiumphantly  driven.  It  is  however  a  most  striking  instance 
of  Hie  tneeling  of  opposite  extremes.  Upon  this  topick,  I  can 
hardly  do  better,  than  to  pi'csent  the  following  quotations 
from  a  great  champion  of  the  Protestant  cause,  whose  author- 
iiy  on  some  poijiis  you  would  undjubLedly  very  Inghly  value. 
<•!  pray  tell  me,"  says  Chillingworth,  *<why  cannot 
Heresies  be  sufdi  iently  discovered,  condemned,  and  avoided 
by  them  which  believe  scriptuiT  to  be  the  rule  of  faith?  If 
s( ripture  be  sufiicient  to  ijifoim  us  what  is  the  Faith,  it  mu.'it 
t>f  necessity  also  he  suflicient  to  teach  us  what  is  Heresy;  see- 
iijg  Ilercsy  is  nothing  but  a  manifest  deviation  from,  or  op- 
])Osition  to  the  Faith.  That  which  is  straight  will  plainly 
leach  us  what  is  crooked;  and  one  contraiy  cannot  but 
manifest  the  other. — Thougli  we  pretoid  not  to  ccriaiii 
means  of  not  erring  m  interpreting  all  sciipture,  partic- 
ularly such  places  as  are  obscure  and  ambiguous,  yet  this, 
methinks,  should  be  no  impediment,  but  that  wc  may  ha^  e 
certaiji  means  of  not  erring  in  and  about  the  sense  of  those 
places  w  hich  are  so  plain  and  dear  that  they  need  no  inter- 
preters: And  in  such  we  say  our  faith  is  contained.  If  you 
ask  me,  how  I  can  be  sure  that  I  kriow  tlie  true  meaning  of 
these  places?    1  onk  you  ag.iin,  can  you  be  sure  that  you  un- 

•  I  arn  fuU^^ awr>i-t!  that  tli»  orthoJox  liavt;  been  violeiUly  chargrd  wllli  a  iJercilc- 
fujn  oflliis  i>iiacij>1p,  beiauae  they  make  use  of  citfcds;  and  Unitarians,  in  oppos- 
ing cie<'ds,  liave  cl:»iii;ed  the  honour  of  "tontcodiitg  for  the  liberty  of  Ijein;<  I'ro- 
K-staiits."  Every  v»cil  informed  person  however  knows,  that  the  ProtestHni', 
UJd  the  principle,  not  to  tlie  exciuskjji  of  creeds  di-awii  from  the  scriptures,  but 
ift  opposition  to  ''un-written  tradition"  and  "papal  infallibility."  ^\  liile  they  liclii 
(lie  scripuuea  to  be  the  only  and  suftkient  rule  of  faith,  all  the  Pioteslart 
thiirthcs  had  th<3ir  creeds. — 'l"he  Unitarian  art;uincnt,  in  misapidyinj  the  prmci- 
j)le,i!  to  this  effect:  Tlie  sciiptures  are  sufficiently  full  luul  plain  as  the  rule  ct 
faith  for  all  men;  thrrcfore  no  man,  or  bcxly  of  men,  has  a  right  to  say  v  hat  doc- 
trines the  scriptures  teach! 


55 

ilerstand  what  I,  or  any  man  else  says? — God  bctliaukcd  that 
we  have  sufficient  means  to  be  certain  enough  of  the  truth  of 
our  faith.  But  the  privilege  of  not  being  in  possmity  ui' 
erring,  that  we  challenge  not,  because  we  have  as  little  rea- 
son as  you,  to  do  so;  and  you  have  none  at  all.  If  you 
ask,  seeing  v  e  may  possibly  err,  how  can  we  be  af:sured  we 
do  not?  I  ask  you  again,  seeing  your  eye-siglit  may  deceive 
vol!,  how  can  you  be  sure  you  sec  the  sun  when  you  do  see  it? 
Perhaps  }  ou  may  he  in  a  dream,  and  perhaps  you  and  all  the 
men  in  the  woi-ld  have  been  so,  m  hen  they  thought  they  were 
awake,  and  then  only  awake,  when  they  thought  they 
dreamt. — A  pretty  sophism  this, — that  whosoever  possiUij 
may  err,  cannot  be  certain  that  he  doth  not  cn\  A  judge  may 
possibly  err  in  judgment;  can  he  therefore  never  have  as- 
surance, that  he  hath  judged  right.  A  traveller  may  possi- 
bly mistake  his  way;  must  I  therefore  be  doubtful  \\hcthcr  T 
am  in  the  right  way  from  my  hall  to  my  chamber. 

'•Methinks,  so  subtle  a  man  as  you  are,  should  easily  ap- 
prehend a  wide  difference  between  authority  to  do  a  thing, 
;\nd  infallihitity  in  doing  it,  and  again,  between  a  conditional 
infallibility  and  an  absolute.  The  forme-r,  the  Doctor,  [Potter] 
together  with  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  attrihut- 
eth  to  the  church,  nay  to  particular  churches,  and  1  subscribi' 
to  his  opinion:  Tliat  is,  an  authoriiy  of  determining  contro- 
versies of  faith,  according  to  plain  and  evident  scjipture,  and 
universal  tradition,  and  infalhMlity  while  they  proceed  accord- 
ing to  tliis  rule.  As,  if  there  should  arise  an  herelick  that 
should  call  in  question  Chii.st's  passion  ar<d  resurrecticin,  t!;e 
church  had  authority  to  decide  this  c<\ntroversy,  and  infaidbk 
direction  how  to  do  it,  and  to  excomvinnicate  this  man,  if  he 
sliould  persist  in  his  eri'Qur. 

•••The  ground  of  your  erroiir  here  is,  your  not  distinguisb- 
iiig  bct\^cen  acinal  certainty  and  absolute  infallihility.  Geome=.. 
tricians  are  not  infallible  in  their  o^^  n  science;  yet  they  aro 
very  certain  of  those  things  which  they  see  denionstrate<l:  and 
raijicjiters  are  not  infuJliUc.  }et  certain  of  tlic  straightncss  of 
those  things  w  hicli  agree  with  tljeir  rule  and  square.  So  though 
the  cliurch  be  not  ivfaliibly  ccitain  tbnt  in  all  her  deniiiliinu', 
■vvhoreof  some  ai'e  about  dismtt.l^le  ar.d  ambignous  ijialtors. 


56 

slic  shall  proceed  according  to  her  rule;  yet  heiiig  certain  of 
tlie  infallibility  of  her  rule,  and  that  in  this  and  that  tiling  she 
dotJi  manifestly  i)r()ieed  according  to  it;  she  may  be  certain 
of  the  truth  of  some  particular  decrees,  and  yet  not  he  certain 
that  she  shall  never  decree  hut  Mhat  is  true. 

<*rrot.estants,  helje\ing  scripture  to  be  the  word  of  God, 
may  be  certain  enough  of  the  truth  and  cei'tainty  of  it.  For 
what  if  tbey  say  the  Catholick  Church,  much  more  them- 
selves, may  eiT  in  seme  unfundaniental  poijits,  is  it  tiici'efoj'C 
consequent,  they  can  be  certain  of  jionc  such?  What  if  a  wiser 
man  than  I  may  mistake  somcobscun;  jiluce  of  Aristotle,  may 
1  not  therefore,  without  any  arrogance  or  inconsequence  con- 
ceive myself  certain  that  I  understand  him  in  some  plain 
places  which  cany  their  sense  before  them? — We  pretend  not 
at  all  to  any  assurance  that  wc  cannot  err,  but  oidy  to  a  siitii- 
cient  certainty  that  wc  do  not  err^  but  rightly  understand  those 
things  that  are  plain,  whether  fundamental  or  not  fundamen- 
tal.— I  do  heartily  acknowledge  and  believe  the  articles  of 
our  faith  to  be  in  themselves  truths  as  certain  and  infallible, 
as  the  very  common  pi-inciplcs  of  geometry  or  metaphys-. 
icks.'-* 

These  pertinent  and  forcible  reasonings  and  remarks, 
which  were  long  ago  employed  against  tlie  Papists,  are  now 
of  equal  pertinence  and  force  against  the  Unitarians;  and 
they  now  as  well  explain  and  vindicate  the  principles  and  a  iews. 
of  the  orthodox,  as  they  then  did  those  of  the  l*rotestants. 

But  you  say  further,  p.  27.  "It  is  also  imporlant  to  recol- 
lect the  character  of  those  men,  against  whom  the  apostolick 
anathema  was  directed.  They  were  men  mIio  knew  distinctly 
what  the  apostles  taught,  and  yet  opposed  it;  and  who  en- 
deavoured to  sow  division,  and  to  gain  followers  in  the 
churches  which  the  apostles  had  planted.  These  men,  re- 
sisting the  known  instructions  of  the  authorized  and  inspired 
teachers  of  the  gospel,  and  discovei-ing  a  factious,  selfish, 
mci'cenary  spirit,  were  justly  excluded  as  unworthy  the 
christian  name.  But  what  in  common  with  the.se  men,  have 
the  christians  whom  Dr.  "NVoicester  and  his  friends  denounce? 

•  Chiningfworth's  Works,   Clinp.  ir,  ?ec.   127,  li!!,  15'2,  IGO,   Id'i.    Chap.  iU, 


57 

Bo  iJiese  oppose  what  they  know  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Chrltsl 
aisd  his  apostles?" 

I  ask  you,  sir,  how  those  iiicii  ^^knexv  distiucthf  what  the 
apostles  taught?  We  have  now  the  writings  of  the  apostles, 
the  same  v.liich  were  then  conrmunicated  to  the  churolies;  hut, 
accoi'ding  to  you  and  your  friends,  no  miinspired  niaii  can 
know  distinctly  what  they  teach.  Wei*e  tliosc,  who  resisted 
the  known  instructions  of  the  authorised  and  inspii=ed  teach- 
ci"S  of  the  gospel,  tlienisplves  inspired  men  ?  If  not,  what 
right  have  you  to  say  that  they  knew  what  the  apostles 
taught,  any  better  than  uninspired  n^en  now  may  know  ?  Will 
jousaytliat,  besides  having  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  th^y 
had  the  advantages  of  hearing  the  apostles  preach  and  con- 
vei*se?  How  do  you  know  that  such  was  the  fact  \\\i\\  all,  if 
it  were  with  some  of  them?  Besides,  if  the  apostles  could  not 
write  intelligibly,  who  shall  say  that  they  cmdd  preach  or 
converse  intelligibly?  It  should  seem  indeed,  tliat  tlie  adver- 
saries of  Paul  and  his  doctrine  dreaded  his  writing's  more 
than  his  preacliing  and  conversation.  "Kis  letters,  said  they* 
^re  weighty  and  powerful^  but  his  bodily  presence  is  weak, 
and  his  speech  contemptible." 

But  further,  if  those  men  did  know^  distinctly  what  tlie 
apostles  taught,  did  they  however  know  that  the  apostles' 
weiT  '^inspii-ed"  men?  Is  it  not  on  the  contrary  certain,  that 
of  Paul  in  particular,  they  denied  both  tke  inspiiation  and 
aposlolick  commission?  Will  you  take  it  uj)on  you  to  say, 
tliat  in  this  they  were  not  honest?  Paul  himself,  w  bile  a  zeal- 
ous pharisee,  rerily  thought,  notwithstanding  all  ''tlie  signs 
and  wondere"  which  had  been  exhibited,  tliat  he  ought  to  do 
many  things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nal^areth. 
>Vhy  then  might  not  those  false  teachers  and  others  w  ho  op- 
posed themselves  to  Paul,  verily  think  that  they  ought  to  op- 
pose him  and  his  doctrine  ? 

If  thei-e  is  any  foi*ce  in  what  you  state  upon  this  point,  it 
lies  in  this  assumption:  that  those  whom  the  apostles  exclud- 
ed from  fj'llowship,  as  false  christians  and  hereticks,  were 
guilty  of  opposing  and  rejecting  doctrines,  which  they  knew 
to  have  been  delivered  under  the  authority  of  divine  inspira- 
iionj  and  on  this  account  were  *<ji:stly  excluded  as  umvortBy 


58 

ti»e  clii'istian  name:"  but  now  there  are  no  such  characters,— 
none  who  reject  or  oppose  what  they  know  to  be  divinely 
revealed  truth.  Here,  as  in  other  parts  of  your  an  ritings, 
you  seem  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  mankind  are  much  bet- 
ter now,  than  they  were  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Then 
their  depravity  was  sucli,  that  they  would  deny  and  resist 
what  they  knew  to  be  divine  truth  ;  but  ncnvy  no  man  will 
do  this.  >yhat  warrant  ha^ e  } ou  for  this  assumption?  W hat 
evidence  that  the  heart  is  not  now  as  "deceitful  and  destMJ- 
rately  wicked"  as  ever  it  was?  If  men  eould  once  reject  what 
they  knew  to  be  the  truth  of  God,  why  may  they  not  now? 

Is  it  however  certain,  that  the  opposers  of  Jesus  and  hia 
apostles,  all  of  tlicm  if  any,  rejected  what  they  knew  to  bo 
divine  truth?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  evident,  that,  in  most 
instances  at  least,  though  the  evidence  before  them  was  clear 
and  abundant,  yet  they  found  means  to  make  themselves  be- 
lieve, that  Jesus  and  liis  apostles  Avere  not  "authorized  and 
inspired  teachers,"  and  that  the  doctrines  taught  by  them 
were  not  true.  Jesus  upon  the  cross  prayed,  "Father  for- 
give them,  for  they  know  not  w  hat  they  do."  Paul  testifies 
that  "had  they  known,  they  would  not  have  crucified  the- 
Lord  of  glory;  and  of  himself  says,"  that  what  he  did,  while 
"breathing  out  threatening  luid  slaughter  against  the  disci- 
ples of  the  Lord,"  he  "Jiti  ignorantly  in  unbelief.''*  It  w  as 
generally  so,  no  doubt,  with  those  who  opposed  the  truth  in 
those  ancient  days.  It  is  just  so  now.  It  w  ill  hardly  be  de^ 
nied,  by  any  considerate  nmn,  that,  in  chiistian  lands,  the 
ajdvantages  for  knowing  the  truth  are  as  great  now,  as  they 
were  in  Judea,  or  in  any  part  of  the  world,  in  the  days  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles.  AVhere  then  is  the  mighty  differ- 
ence between  those  who  now  reject  the  truth,  and  those  by 
whom4t  was  then  rejected.  And  if  such  were  not  then  en- 
titled to  the  privileges  of  christian  fellowship,  by  what  rea- 
soning, or  by  what  soi)histry  can  it  be  made  to  appear,  that 
they  are  now  entitled  to  tliese  privileges. 

The  apostles,  by  your  own  admission,  excluded  them:  and 
it  is  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  they  enjoined  it  also  upon  the 
churches  to  exclude  them.  Many  passages  to  this  effect  have 
Jilready  been  cited,  and  many  moi-c  might  be  adduced.     The 


59 

primitive  chiirclies,  though  not  composed  of  Inspired  men,  j^et 
thought  themselves  warranted  to  judge  of  doctrines  whether 
they  were  true  or  false;  and  accordingly,  in  conformity  to 
apostolick  example  and  direction,  withdrew  themselves  from 
those  who  rejected,   or  essentially   connipted   the   gospel. 
Some  of  them  indeed  were  more  faithful  in  this  respect  than 
others;  and  in  his  solemn  addresses  to  the  churches  in  Asia, 
•«He  ^\ho  walketh  in  the  midst  of  the  golden  candlesticks," 
particularly  commended  the  more  faitid'ul,  and  severely  re- 
buked the  more  negligent.     And  I  hold  it  to  be  a  fact,  which 
ought  not  to  be  controverted,  that,  in  all  succeeding  ages, 
the  purest  and  best  churches,  those  which  have  shone  as  the 
brightest  liglits  in  the  world,  have  been  the  most  steadfast  in 
the  apostolick  practice, — ^the  most  faithful  in  keeping  sepa- 
rate from  those,  <^who  would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Christ."' 
Yet  you  say,  p.  27,  "It  is  truly  wonderful,  if  excommunica- 
tion for  supposed  errour  be  the  method  of  purifying,  tiiat  the 
church  has  been  so  long  and  so  wofully  coiTupted.     What- 
ever may  have  been  the  deficiencies  of  christians  in  other  re- 
spects, they  have  certainly  discovered  no  criminal  reluctance 
in  applying  this  instrument  of  purification,"     And  in  this 
connexioSi  you  employ  an  elegance  of  imagery,  worthy  of  be- 
ing applied  to  a  much  better  purpose,  together  with  a  vehe- 
mence of  reproach,  similar  to  what  is  often  to  be  met  with  in 
tiie   writings  of  the  avowed  enemies  of  Christianity.     For 
myself  however,  I  am  firmly  persuaded  that  it  is  to  be  at- 
ti'ibuted,  not  to  undue  strictness,  but  to  a  criminal  laxation 
of  discipline,  that  "the  church  has  been  so  long  and  so  woful- 
ly coiTupted."     Owing  to  this  laxation,  the  corrupters  of  the 
gospel  have  found  it  easy  to  introduce  and  intrench  them- 
selves witiiin  tiie  sacred  pale;  and  seizing  upon  the  gates  and 
fortresses  of  the  holy  city,  have  made  themselves  strong, 
have  cast  down  the  truth  to  tlie  ground,  have  worn  out  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High,  and  have  practised  and  prospered, 
until  they  have  ^'rendered  the  records  of  the  christian  commu- 
nity as  black,  as  bloody,  as  revolting  to  humanity,  as  the 
records  of  empires  founded  on  conquest  and  guilt." 

You  contend  nevertheless,  p.  28,  tliat  mistake  in  judgment 
is  the  heaviest  charge  which  one  denoniiuatiou  has  now  a 


60 

Hgitt  to  arj^e  against  anotlier,  and  yon  ask,  <»Bo  we  find 
tJiat  tlic  ajjostlcs  ever  dcnonnrcd  mistake  as  <a\v<'ul  and  Iiital 
hostility'  to  the  gospel,  that  they  prononnced  anathemas  on 
men,  who  wished  to  obey,  bnt  who  misappi-ebended  their 
doctrines/'  It  is  already,  I  trust,  sunicjently  evident,  that 
the  nature  and  genei-al  character  of  mankind  are  not  so  dil- 
fcrent  now^  from  wliat  they  were  in  the  apostles'  days,  as  you 
seem  to  suppose^  that  there  is  no  such  difference  between  tlio 
cases  ol"  those  professed  christians,  who  then  opposed  and 
pervei-ted  the  gosi>el,  and  those  w  ho  now  da  the  same,  as  you 
represent.  If  mistake  in  judgment  is  the  heaviest  charge, 
Avhich  they  justly  incur  now,  it  is  the  heaviest  which  they  just- 
ly incurred  then. — Do  you  iniagine.  Sir,  that  tliose  whom 
the  apostles  ^^denounccd  and  excluded^"  made  no  pretensions 
to  sincerity,  no  professions  o  f  "a  wish  to  obey"  the  gospel? 
Do  not  the  apostles  testify  that  the  false  teachers,  on  whom 
<'tliey  pronounced  anathemas,"  iransformed  themselves  inta 
the  apostles  of  Christ?  And  is  it  not  abundantly  manifest, 
that  they  made  A^eiy  lofty  pretensions  to  sincerity  and  vir- 
tue, and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches  deceived  the  hearts  of 
the  simpU?  Even  the  immediate  opposcrs  of  Christ,  on  ^^  horn 
he  pro)Miun<:ed  his  heaviest  woes,,  claimed  to  have  God,  even 
<'the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,"  for  their  Fa- 
ther, and  in  their  zeal  for  God,  opposed  and  rejected  his  doc- 
trines as  blasphemous.  Thci'e  is  no  evidence  to  show,  nor 
reason  to  belie\  e,  that  the  adversaries  of  the  truth  were  not 
as  sincere,  as  ( undid,  as  virtuous,  and  as  respectable,  in  the 
first  days  of  tlie  gospel,  as  they  arc  in  the  pi-esent  age;  and 
might  as  jusily  claim  exemption  from  every  charge,  heavier 
than  that  of  *nnistakc  in  judgment." 

This  ho^^evcr  was  Hot  the  heaviest  charge  wliich  was 
urged  against  them.  To  thosie  who  claimed  to  ha%  e  God  for 
t]ieir  fatlicr,  aiul  wiio  were  fair  and  ^'beautiful"  in  outward 
ajjpearance,  the  miUl  and  benevolent  Jesus  said,  *'I  know  you 
that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  you.  Ye  believe  not,  be- 
cause je  are  not  of  njy  slieep.  How  can  ye  beliex'^ey  ivhich  re- 
seivc  honour  one  of  anolhcr,  and  seek  not  the  honour  which 
Cometh  from  God  only?^^  And  he  declared  that  they  had 
*4botU  seen  and  hated  both  him  and  his  Father."   All  this,  yojx. 


61 

m  ill  please  to  observe,  was  said  of  the  pharisecs',  rabbins,  ra- 
Jers,  and  priests,  those  wlio  "devoted  themselves  to  the  study 
of  the  scriptures,"  and  were  regarded  by  one  another,  and  by 
the  world,  as  "the  eminent,  the  enlightened,  and  the  good." 
I  quote  these  testimonies  of  the  "faithful  and  true  Witness- 
as  a  specimen,  not  to  intimate  that  "fallible  men"  sliould 
rashly  apply  or  use  similar  language,  but  to  slicw  in  wliat 
Jight  He  wbo  "knows  what  is  in  man,"  views  an  obstinate 
disbelief  of  the  truth.     Far  from  regarding  it  as  mere  mis- 
take in  judgment,  he  traces  it  home  to  an  evil  heart.    Accord- 
ingly he  declares  in  general  terms,  that  "men  love  darkness 
rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  are  cviU*     The  inspired 
Taul  also  says,  "If  our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that 
are  lost;  in  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds 
of  them  which  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  gospel 
of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine  unto  them.** 
And  he  represents  natural  men  as  "having  the  understanding 
darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  through  tlie 
ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  their 
hearts."    To  this  evil  source,  this  moral  depravity,  the  scrip- 
tures constantly  refer   disbelief  and  rejection  of  the  truth. 
Nor  do  they  at  all  limit  this  affecting  representation  to  the 
early  times  of  the  gospel.    On  the  contrary,  the  spirit  of  pro- 
phecy most  abundantly  foretold,  that   errours,   proceeding 
from  the  same  corrupt  source,  would  abound  in  times  then 
future  and  distant;  and  that  the  last  ages  of  the  world  Mould, 
in  this  respect,  be  eminently  perilous:   that  men  would  "turn 
away  from  the  truth,  not  enduring  sound  doctrine:"  and  that 
false  doctrines  would  be  propagated  in  such  a  manner,  by 
such  men,  and  with  such  pretensions,  as  would  "deceive,  wei-e 
it  possible,  the  very  elect." 

And  is  it  not  most  evident,  that  all  which  is  proud  and 
haughty,  and  corrupt,  in  the  nature  of  fallen  mankind,  will, 
jh  every  age,  resist  tlie  truth  of  God? — particularly  thosr 
humbling  doctrines  which  declare,  tliat  "the  heart  is  deceitful 
above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked,"  that  "except  a 
man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  that 
men  can  be  justified  no  otherwise,  than  "freely  by  the  grace  oi' 
Qoi],  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jcsas,  whowi 


65 

God  iiatli  set  foitii  to  be  a  pi'opiiiation  through  faith  in  his 
blood;"  and  those  \vhic  li  transcend  the  comprehension  of  hu- 
man reason,  the  liinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, — tlje  union 
of  the  divine  wilh  human  nature  in  the  person  of  Chj'ist,  and 
the  expiation  of  the  sins  of  the  world,  by  his  one  olfering  of 
himself.  And  is  it  not  equnlly  eviaviit,  that  all  that  is  self^ 
sufficient,  and  arrogant,  and  subtile  in  man,  will  employ  all 
the  resources  of  "philosophy  and  vain  deceit,''  to  cori-upt, 
to  discredit,  and  to  subvert  ductriucs  to  which  the  heart  is  so 
decidedly  adverse? 

Still,  however,  you  stJTnuously  insist,  p.  £9,  "Whatever 
may  be  tlie  right  of  christians  as  to  bearing  testimojiy  against 
opinwiis  which  they  deem  injurious,  1  deny  that  they  have  any 
right  to  pass  a  condemning  sentence  on  the  characters  of  men 
whose  general  depoiiment  is  conformed  to  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  Both  scripture  and  reason  unite  in  teaching  that  the 
best  and  only  standard  of  character  is  tlie  life;  and  he  who 
overlooks  the  testimony  of  a  good  life,  and  grounds  a  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  on  opinions,  about  wiiich  he  as  well 
as  his  brother  may  err,  violates  most  flagrantly,  the  duty  of 
just  and  candid  judgment,  and  opposes  the  peaceful  and  cliar-^ 
itable  spiiit  of  the  gospel.** 

By  the  <»condennjing  sentence*'  of  which  you  here  speak, 
I  understand  you  to  mean  the  sentence  of  excommunication, 
or  non-communion;  and  the  principal  sentiment  of  the 
passage,  stript  of  its  adventitious  circumstances,  is,  tha'fe 
christians  ba^  e  not  a  right  to  exclude  any  from  their  fellow- 
shi})  on  account  of  erroneous  opinions,  or,  in  other  words,  on 
account  of  their  corrupting  or  denying  any  docti'ines  of  the 
gospel.  It  is,  h(»wever,  an  indisputable  fact,  as  has  beforc 
been  shewn,  that  christians  have  always,  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles  to  the  present,  held  and  exercised  this  as  a  right  and  as 
a  duty.  And  I  ask  you.  Sir,  do  not  even  Unitanans,  do  not  you 
3  ourself  claim  and  exercise  this  right?  Is  there  no  case  in  whicli 
ycui  would  exclude  a  man  from  christian  fellowship  on  ac- 
coiuit  of  erroneous  opinions  ?  In  your  i-emarks  on  my  second 
letter,  p.  19,  you  say,  "We  ai'e  convinced  fronj  laborious  re- 
search into  tlie  scriptinrs,  that  the  great  truth,  which  is  the. 
<)))iect  of  christian  belief,  and  which  in  the  first  ages  con^ 


63 

ferred  the  charactei*  of  (iiSciplcs  on  all  who  received  it,  is 
simply  this,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  or  anointed  by  God  to  betJie 
light  and  Saviour  of  the  world.  Whenever  tiiis  great  truth 
api>ears  to  us  to  he  sincerely  acknowledged,  whenever  a  man 
of  apparent  uprightness  declares  to  us  his  reception  of  Jesus 
in  this  character,  and  his  corresponding  purpose  to  study  and 
obey  his  religion,  we  feel  ourselves  bound  to  give  him  the 
hand  of  christian  fellowship.**— Be  it  even  so.  There  is  then, 
however,  one  article  of  faith,  which  you  hold  essential  to 
christian  fellowship;  an  article  w  hich  you  have  ascertained  by 
"laborious  research."  Should  one,  who  denies  the  great 
truth  that  Jesus  is  the  anointed  by  God  to  be  the  light  and  Sav- 
iour of  the  world,  request  the  priA  ileges  of  fellowship  in  your 
.church,  however  fair  his  character  in  other  respects  might 
be,  he  could  not  he  admitted.  lie  w  ould  be  refused  simidy  on 
account  of  his  opinion.  And  for  the  same  reason,  should  a 
member  of  your  church,  a  man  of  apparent  uprightness,  avow 
his  disbelief  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  if  you  and  your  church 
acted  consistently  with  your  declared  principle,  he  would  be 
excluded  from  your  fellowsliip. 

But  why  should  you  exclude  him?  why  exclude  a  man  for 
his  errour  in  this  one  particular?  I  suppose  the  plain  truth  to 
be  this:  You  would  hold  that  he  may  be  a^oorZ  man,  and  go  to 
heaven,  tliough  he  disbelieve  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,*  and 
deny  divine  revelation  altogether.  Yet  you  would  say,  that 
he  cannot  be  a  christian,  unless  he  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  anointed  by  God  to  be  the  Light  and  Saviour  of 
the  world.  But  why  not?  lie  may  acknowledge,  as  many 
infidels  have  done,  that  Jesus  Ciirist  was  a  man  of  preeminent 
excellence  of  character,  and  the  best  moral  teacher  or  philos- 
opher, tliat  ever  a])})eared  in  the  world;  may  "declare,  with 
apparent  uprightness,  his  corresponding  purpose  to  study 
ftnd  obey  his  religion;"  and  may  wish  to  call  hiniself,  and  to 
be  called  a  christian,  for  t!ie  same  reason  that  the  followers 
of  riato  were  called  Platonists,,  and  others  have  been  called 
after  the  names  of  the  philosophei-s  or  teachers,  whom  they 
have  respectively  chosen  for  their  masters.     Still,  however. 

^  *  Nntwithstaflding  JesHs  has  said,  "If  vt  belicvt  r.p  t  tknt  I  cm  he,  ve  shoU  i^'c 
m^uuv Sim.  !■       » - 


04 

}n!j  may  say,  lie  denies  the  diunh  antlilsoi'diuauccs  to  be  of 
divine  institution,  and  it  would  be  a  profanation  for  bim  to 
participate  in  them?  Why  so?  Though  he  denies  them  to  be  of 
divine  appointment,  he  nevertheless  acknowledges  tliem  to  be 
institutions  of  JcsusChrist,  whom  he  acknowledges  as  hismsis- 
ter;  institutions  eminently  conducive  to  the  improvement  of 
the  social  virtues  and  to  the  good  of  society;  and  lie  is  tlierc- 
fore  sincerely  desirous  of  participating  with  other  good  ciirist- 
ians  in  tliem. 

Why  tlien,  I  repeat  it,  sliould  you  refuse  him?  Why  after 
all  is  it  so  very  important,  that  he  should  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  Clirist,  the  anointed  by  God? 

You  will  not  I  presume  insist,  that  the  case  now  supposed  is 
such  an  one  as  does  not  and  cannot  exist?  Are  there  not  many, 
who  stand  almost  precisely  upon  this  ground?  Is  it  not  so  with 
some  who  are  called  deists  or  infidels?  Is  it  not  so  with  those 
unitarianss  in  Germany  and  elsewhere,  who  deny  special  di- 
vine inspiration  altogether, — deny  that  Jesus  is  the  Jlessiali 
of  the  Old  Testament, — deny  that  he  was,  in  any  special  or 
proper  sense,  anointed  bij  God  to  be  the  Light  and  Saviour  of 
the  world;  and  yet  call  theinselves  christians! 

What  will  you  do  with  these  men?  If  you  admit  them  to 
christian  fcllosvsliip,  you  must  give  up  wliat,  after  "laborious 
research  into  tiie  scriptures,"  you  hold  to  be  the  single  essen- 
tial ai'ticle  of  tlie  christian  faith;  that  which  alone  "confers 
the  character  of  discijdes  on  all  who  receive  it."  If  you  re- 
fuse them,  you  incur  the  guilt  of  the  lieinous  crime  of  exclud- 
ing from  fellowship,  on  account  of  opinion,  or  of  what  you 
otherwise  call,  mere  mistake  in  judgment. — If  you  say  you 
do  not  "pass  a  condemniiig  sentence  on  their  characters;''  I 
reply,  then  neither  do  we  on  the  characters  of  those  w  hom  we 
exclude:  and  I  refer  you  to  what  1  have  said  on  this  topick, 
in  the  24th  page  of  my  second  letter.  You  do  however  pro- 
nounce a  sentence  importing  distinctly,  that  the  excluded  per- 
sons are  not  christians;  for  it  is  upon  the  very  principle,  tiiat 
they  deny  that  article  of  faith,  which  alone  "confers  the 
character  of  disciples,"  that  you  exclude  them.  This  is  more 
than,  in  ordinary  cases  of  withholding  or  withdraw  ing  fellow- 
ship, we  pronounce. 


65 

The  difference  then  hetween  you  and  us  in  regard  to  fel- 
lowship, is  not  that  we  exclude  on  account  of  opinion,  and 
you  do  not;  but  it  is  this:  you  hold  it  necessary,  only  that  a 
person  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Chnst;  we  hold  it  necessary, 
that  he  also  believe  in  the  essential  dodnnes  of  ChrisVs  religion. 
J3y  what  authority  you  make  your  specified  article  the  only 
essential  article  of  the  christian  fnith,  after  some  "research  in- 
to the  scriptures,"  and  after  perusing  with  some  attention 
your  great  authority,  Locke,  I  am  still  unable  to  see.  Was 
it  for  the  denial  of  this  article,  and  this  only,  that  the  apos- 
tles pronounced  their  anathemas?  Did  the  false  teachers  who 
troubled  the  churches  of  Galatia  and  Corinth,  did  Hymeneus 
and  Alexander,  did  those  "many  antichrists"  of  whom  the 
apostle  John  speaks,  deny  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ?  No:  but 
they  were  excluded  for  errours  of  a  very  different  kind.  What 
would  you  think  of  the  man,  who  sliould  call  himself  a  Plato- 
nist,  merely  because  he  acknowledges  Plato  to  have  been  a 
great  philosopher,  while  at  the  same  time  he  denies  all  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Platonick  system?  Please  to  answer 
the  question;  and  then  apply  the  answer  to  the  man,  who 
professes  to  be  a  christian,  merely  because  he  acknowledges 
Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  and  yet  denies  all  tlie  essential  doc- 
trines of  the  christian  system. 

How,  after  reconsidering  the  subject,  you  will  decide  re- 
specting those,  who  deny  your  one  essential  article,  1  know 
not,  nor  am  I  greatly  concerned  to  know.  At  present,  how- 
ever, according  to  your  own  account,  you  have  your  creed,  as 
well  as  we  ours;  a  short  one  indeed,  as  one  of  your  respecta- 
ble friends  has  eloquently  expressed  it,  "co?ifaiued  in  one 
bright  line;''  yet  a  creea  which  is  exclusive.'  Yes,  Sir,  you 
yourselves  do  the  A^ery  thing,  which  you  so  vehemently  con- 
demn in  us!  Fou  exclude  from  chnstian  fellow  ship  on  account  of 
epinion! 

Wiiat  then  becomes  of  all  your  rhetorical  declamations, 
your  inflammatory  invectives,  your  violent  charges  of  per- 
secution? They  might  all  be  retorted  with  all  their  force 
upon  yourselves.  Such  characters  as  I  have  described,  by 
whatever  name  they  may  be  called,  might  adopt  your  own 
language,    and  with  equal  pertinency  and  modesty,   say, 


«For"  ourselves,  we  "know  not  a  shadow  of  pretence  for  the 
lanj^iiagc  of  superiority  assumed  by"  Mr.  Channing  «*and 
bis  brethren.  Are  they  exempted  from  the  common  frailty 
of  our  nature?  Has  God  given  them  superior  intelligence? 
Were  they  educated  under  circumstances  more  favourable  to 
improvement  than  those  whom  they  condemn?  Have  they 
brought  to  the  scriptures  more  serious,  anxious,  and  unwea- 
ried attention?  Or  do  their  lives  express  a  deeper  reverence 
for  God?  No.  They  are  fallible,  imperfect  men,  possess- 
ing no  higher  means,  and  no  stronger  motives  for  studying  the 
word  of  God  than  their"  excluded  "brethren."  Our  "offence 
is,  that  we  read  the  scriptures  for"  ourselves,  and  derive 
from  them  "a  different  opinion  on"  one  "point,"  from  that 
Mliich  others  have  adopted.  Mistake  of  judgment  is  our  pre- 
tended crime,  and  tliis  crime  is  laid  to  our  chai-ge  by  mea 
who  are  liable  to  mistake  as  "ourselves,"  and  who  seem  to 
"us"  to  have  fallen  into  *'one"  of  the  grossest  errours.*  A 
condemning  sentence  from  such  judges  carries  in  it  no  tcrrour. 
Sorrow  for  its  uncharitableness,  and  strong  disapprobation 
of  its  arrogance,  are  the  principal  feelings  which  it  inspires*^" 
Pages  25,  26. 

Not  only,  Sir,  do  you  exclude  from  christian  fellowship, 
on  account  of  opinmn,  but  on  account  of  opinion  you  also  pass 
"a  condemning  sentence"  directly  "on  the  characters  of 
men," — of  men  too,  I  think  it  right  to  say,  <*whose  general 
deportment  is  conformed  to  the  gospel  of  Christ."  Here,  iu 
addition  to  the  passages  just  quoted,  and  which  ^^  ere  by  you 

*  Trinitarians  appear  to  you  and  your  brethren,  you  say,  "to  have  fallen  intw 
some  of  the  ^^rosscst  errours."  In  another  place,  p.  10,  you  tell  us,  that  our  "arl- 
ditions  to  the  simple  gospel  seem  to  you  at  least  as  exceptionable  as  the  deficien- 
CiV.s"of  Dr.  Priestly  and  Mr.  Bclsham.  And,  p.  22,  you  say,  "I  am  persuaded, 
that  at  the  last  day  the  Trinitarian  ivill  be  found  in  a  great  eiTour,  and  were  I 
disjxjSfd,  ■  /  cnidd  make  as  moving  aii  apfieul  to  his  fears,  as  Dr.  Worcester  cai> 
make  to  ours."  I  do  not  know  very  well  how  to  reconcile,  with  tlicse  and  other 
similar  representations,  the  following  passages:  "It  is  from  deep  conviction,  that 
I  have  stated  once  and  again,  that  the  difterences  between  Unitarians  and  Trini- 
tarians lie  more  in  sounds,  than  in  ideas,"  &c.  "Trinitarians,  indeed,  arc  apt  (a 
consider  themselves  at  an  immeasui-ablc  distance  from  Unitarians.  The  reason,  I 
think,  is,  that  they  are  surrounded  with  a  mist  of  obscure  phraseology.  Were 
this  mist  dispersed,  I  believe  that  they  woiiKl  be  surprised  at  discovering  their 
proximity  to  the  cjuarter  of  the  Unitarians,"  Jcc.  Pages  'J'2,  23.  Oqc  wouW 
think  that  this  "mist"  might  be  "dispersed" — "at  the  last  day." 


jipplied  to  the  orthodox,  I  must  be  permitt6<i  to  present  a  few 
more  select  quotations  from  your  remarks. — "It  is  truly  as- 
tonishing, you  say,  that  christians  are  not  more  impressed 
with  the  unbecoming  spii'it,  the  arrogant  style,  of  those,  who 
deny  the  christian  character  to  professed  and  exemplary  fol» 
lowers  of  Jesus  Christ,  because  they  differ  in  opinion  on  some 
of  the  most  subtle  and  difficult  subjects  of  theology.  A 
stranger,  at  hearing  the  language  of  these  denouncerSf  would 
conclude  without  a  doubt,  that  they  were  clothed  with  hifalli- 
hility,  and  were  appointed  to  sit  in  judgment  on  their  breth- 
ren. This  is  the  fashionable  mode  of  bearing  testimony,  and 
it  is  a  weapon  which  will  alw  ays  be  most  successful  in  the 
hands  of  the  proudy  the  positive,  and  overbearing^  who  are 
most  impatient  of  contradiction,  and  have  least  regard  to  the 
rights  ojtlieir  brethren.  Persecution  is  a  wrong  or  injury  in- 
flicted for  opinions,  and  surely  assaults  on  character  fall 
mider  this  definition.  Some  persons  seem  to  think  that  per- 
secution consists  in  pursuing  crrour  with  fire  and  sword;  and 
that  therefore  it  has  ceased  to  exist,  except  in  distempered 
imaginations,  because  no  class  of  christians  among  us  is 
armed  with  these  terrible  weapons.  But,  no.  Tlie  form  is 
changed,  but  the  spirit  lives.  Persecution  has  given  up  its 
halter  and  faggot,  but  it  breathes  venom  from  its  lips,  and  se- 
eretltj  blasts  ivhat  it  cannot  opeidij  destroy.  Of  all  earthly 
blessings,  an  honest  reputation  is  to  many  of  us  the  most  pre- 
cious; and  he  wlio  i*obs  us  of  it  is  the  most  injurious  of  man- 
kind, and  among  the  worst  of  persecutors.  Let  not  the  friends 
of  denunciation  attempt  to  escape  from  this  charge,  by  pleading 
their  sense  of  duty,  and  their  sincere  desire  to  promote  the 
cause  of  truth.  St.  Dominic  was  equally  sincere,  ANhen  he 
built  the  inquisition.  Humble,  meek,  and  affectionate  chris- 
tians are  least  disposed  to  make  creeds  for  their  bretlii'cn, 
and  to  denounce  those  who  differ  from  them.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  impetuous,  proud,  and  enthusiastick,  men  who  can- 
not or  will  not  weigh  the  arguments  of  opponents,  are  always 
most  positive  and  unsparing  in  denunciation.  They  take 
tlie  lead  in  a  system  of  exclusion.  They  liave  no  false  mod- 
esty, no  false  cliarity,  to  shackle  their  zeal  in  framing  fun- 
damentals for  Ihoir  bretl^ren,  and  in  punishing  the  obstinate 


ill  errour.  The  consequence  is,  that  creeds  are  formed  which 
exclude  from  Christ's  church  some  of  his  truest  followers, 
which  outrage  reason  as  well  as  revelation.  Sudi  has  been 
the  hisiorij  of  the  church  J'     Pages  25 — 34. 

Such,  Sir,  is  tke  sort  of  language,  which  you  employ  with 
such  frequency,  such  ease,  and  such  assuranee,  as  clearly 
indicate  the  practice  to  be  habitual  with  you.  I  am  afraid 
also  that  no  small  portion  of  your  «'liberal"  friends  are  so 
acrustomed  to  similar  language  and  similar  feelings,  as  to 
have  read  tliese  passages,  and  others  of  the  kind  in  your 
pamphlets,  with  no  other  emotions  than  those  of  pleasure  and 
exultation;  not  suspecting  in  the  least,  that  the  spirit  of  them 
is  not  perfectly  "candid,"  and  "liberal,"  and  "charitable," 
and  «  mild,"  and  "affectionate,"  and  "modest,"  and  "meek," 
and  "humble." 

But  is  there  not  here  **a  condemning  sentence  passed"  di- 
rectly "on  the  characters  of  men?" — a  sentence  of  absolute 
destruction!  The  characters  here  described  are  sentenced 
as  destitute  of  "modesty"  and  of  "charity;" — as  ''the  proud," 
*'the  impetuous,"  the  "arrogant,"  "the  enthusiastick;" — as 
cither  "not  able,  or  not  willing  to  weigh  the  arguments  of 
opponents;" — as  *'most  positive  and  most  unsparing  ot  de- 
nunciation;"— as  "liaving  the  least  regard  to  the  right  of  theii* 
brethren;" — as  "denouncers,"  possessing  ''the  spirit  of  perse- 
cution,^* which,  though  it  «'has  given  up  its  halter  and  faggot," 
yet  ''breathes  venom  from  its  lips,  and  secretly  blasts 
ivhiit  it  cannot  openly  destroij;'* — as  characters  who  shall  in 
vain  "attempt  to  escape  from  the  charge"  of  being  "the  siost 

INJURIOUS    OF   MANKIND,    aiul   amoilg   THE    WORST    OF   PER- 
SECUTORS." 

Was  ever  a  more  "condemning  sentence  passed  on  the 
characters  of  men?"  Is  it  possible  for  one  viore  condemning 
to  be  passed  on  the  very  worst  of  men, — the  most  execrable 
malignants,  and  miscreants,  that  ever  troubled  the  world! 

Upon  whom  is  this  sentence  passed?  Not  upon  the  review- 
ers and  the  writer  of  the  letters  to  Mr.  Channing  oidy;  not 
upon  the  orthodox  ministers  and  christians  cf  this  country 
and  of  the  prescwt  age  only  ;  but  upon  the  great  body  of  the 
christian  church  of  all  nations  and  of  all  ages!  You  "beg," 


69 

indeed,  that  it  *<may  hot  be  applied  indiscriminately  to  tli« 
party  called  orthodox,  among  whom,"  you  arc  pleased  sav- 
ingly to  say,  "there  are  multitudes  whose  humility  and  char- 
ity would  revolt  from  making  themselves  the  standards  of 
christian  piety,  and  from  assailing  tiie  christian  character  of 
their  brethren."  It  does,  however,  from  the  ^  ery  terms  of 
itf  apply  to  all  of  every  nation  and  age,  who  have  adhered  to 
creeds,  and  refused  fellowship  on  account  ot  opinions.  Wiiere, 
among  ortliodox  christians,  the  "multitudes"  are  to  be  found, 
who  do  not  fall  within  this  description,  it  would  not,  1  believe, 
be  very  easy  to  point  out. 

You  will  not  deny  that  creeds  were  used  in  the  early  periods 
of  the  church.  What  is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  if  it  were 
not  set  forth  by  the  apostles  themselves,  is  however  historical- 
ly traced  up  nearly  or  quite  to  the  apostolick  age,  as  having 
been  then  used  in  the  churches  with  little  or  no  exception.  It 
is  equally  certain,  that  in  those  purest  and  brigiitest  days  of 
the  church,  it  was  hek'  by  all  christians  right,  and  a  sacred 
duty,  to  note  as  hereticks,  and  to  exclude  from  fellowship, 
those  who  denied  or  corrupted  the  essential  doctrines  of  the 
gospel.  Afterwards  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds  were 
used  along  with  the  Apostles',  generally,  and  with  exclusive 
effect,  in  the  orthodox  churches.  In  the  age  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, the  Pi'otestant  churches,  Lutheran,  Zuinglian,  Calvin- 
ian,  or  by  whatever  name  distinguished,  all  had  their  creed, 
and  excluded  from  fellowship  those  who  denied  their  essential 
articles.  And  it  has  been  so  with  the  orthodox  churches 
generally,  from  that  day  to  the  present. 

It  is  also  a  well  attested  fact,  that,  by  the  great  body  of 
christians,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  tlie  present,  the 
deniers  of  tlie  Trinity,  or  of  the  proper  Deity  and  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ,  Unitarians  of  various  names,  have  been  1*0- 
garded  as  being  eminently  subverters  of  the  gospel;  and  r.s 
little  doubt  has  been  entertained  of  the  duty  of  withholding 
fellowi^hip  from  them,  as  from  any  who  have  called  them- 
selves christians.  About  two  hundred  years  ago  indeed  the 
celebrated  Episcopius  made  it  a  question,  whether  they  might 
not,  consistently  with  tlie  gospel,  be  admitted  to  the  fellow- 
ship of  orthodox  churches.     But  the  question,  after  ardent. 


ro 

and  powerful  debate,  on  the  Continent  and  in  England,  was 
decided  in  the  negative;  and  in  that  decision,  the  oi-thodox 
churches,  with  great  unanimity,  have  ever  since  rested. 

I  am  then  fully  Mari'anted  in  saying,  that  your  condemn- 
ing sentence  ajjplics  to  the  great  body  of  the  church  of  Christ 
of  all  ages  and  nations,  hideed  you  yourself  very  explicitly 
give  it  this  extensive  application  when  you  say,  with  signifi- 
cant emphasis,  "^Such  has  been  the  history  of  the  church.^'  Es- 
pecially docs  it  apply  to  those,  \\  ho,  in  successive  periods, 
have  been  tlie  most  distinguished  in  <'the  kingdom  and  pa- 
tience of  Jesus  Clirist," — who  have  contended  with  the  most 
holy  charity  and  zeal  for  tlie  faith  o)Ke  deiivered  to  the  saints, 
by  whose  labours  and  suffl^rings  tlic  religion  of  the  gospel 
has  been,  i)istrumentally,  maintaijied  and  propagated, — of 
whom  the  world  has  not  been  worthy. — but  whose  "witness 
is  in  heaven  and  their  record  on  liigi»." — And,  my  dear  Sir, 
it  is  with  no  common  feelings  of  grief,  that  I  find  m}sclf 
compelled  to  say,  that  a  heavier  se»'tence  than  yours,  agaijist 
tlie  disciples  of  the  Lord,  against  **the  church  of  the  li* ing 
God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  has  never,  I  be- 
lieve, been  pronounced,  by  the  bitterest  of  enemies,  either  pa- 
gan or  infidel. 

But  why  arc  the  servants  of  the  Most  High  thus  condemn- 
ed? Because  they  have  thought  it  right  not  to  extend  christian 
fellowshrp  to  such  as  have  denied  and  sought  to  subverts  what 
they  hold  to  be  the  essential  doctrines  of  their  holy  religion;  doc- 
trines on  which  they  have  founded  all  their  hopes  of  salva- 
tion to  themselves  and  their  fellow  men,  and  which  they  have 
been  ready  to  seal,  and  in  tiiousands  of  instances  Iiave  a(  tu- 
ally  se.iled,  with  their  blood.  Yes,  Sir,  it  is  for  this  opinioit 
of  theirs,  that  you  have  passed  a  condemning  sentence  on 
their  ^^characters,''''  as  "the  most  ixjurious  or  maxkixd, 
THE  WORST  OF   h;:rsecutors,   breathing  vexom  from 

THEIR  LIPS,    JLXD  SECRETIiY  BLASTING  WHAT  THEY  COULD 

>'0T  OPENLY  destroy!  If  then,  as  vou  say,  persecution  is  a 
T^  rong  or  an  injury  inflicted  for  opinions,  and  assaults  on 
character  surely  fall  under  this  definition;"  I  Sdlemidy  refer 
jt  to  your  conscience  before  God,  whetlier  you  do  not  stand 
■'rOnvicted  at  your  own  bar  as  a  persecutor. 


n 

If  you  say  that  the  great  hody  of  orthodox  christians?, 
whom  you  have  thus  vehemently  condemned,  have  not  only 
held  the  obnoxious  opinion,  but  have  also  expressed  it  and 
acted  upon  it,  1  shall  not  deny  tlie  charge.  But  that  they 
have  done  it  in  the  bitter  and  violent  manner,  which  you 
have  so  frightfully  represented,  especially  in  this  country, 
and  still  more  especially  "in  this  quarter  of  our  country,'*'! 
do  utterly  deny;  and  I  challenge  you  to  produce  any  facts  to 
justify  in  the  least  your  representation.  I  affirm,  with  the 
most  assured  confidence,  that  if  in  any  part,  or  in  any  period 
of  the  world,  a  spirit  of  moderation,  forbearance,  and  kind- 
ness, has  been  shewn  towards  those  who  have  been  regarded 
as  subverters  or  corrupters  of  the  gospel,  it  has  been  in  thiis 
region,  and  in  the  present  age.  Even  you  yourself  acknow- 
ledge, that  we  "talk  to  you  courteously  as  friends;"  but  this^ 
in  your  charity,  you  choose  to  represent  as  "mockery,"  with 
-an  insidious  intention  to  "rivet  your  chains,"  and  "more  ir- 
ritating than  papal  bondage."  Of  the  candour  of  tliis  rep- 
resentation, I  have  nothing  to  say;  but  have  only  to  remark, 
that,  even  in  tlie  midst  of  your  violent  invectives,  you  have 
reluctantly  made,  at  an  unguarded  moment,  an  acknowledge- 
ment of  a  fact,  known  and  read  of  all  men:  the  fact,  that  in- 
stead of  the  venom  and  "outrage,"  wliich,  from  the  general 
strain  of  your  declamation,  "a  stranger"  would  suppose  you 
had  experienced,  you  have  actually  been  treated  by  these 
«*most  injurious  of  mankind,"  with  great  courtesy  and  kind- 
ness,— with  great  tenderness  for  your  characters^  and  care  for* 
the  preservation  of  peace.  But  the  "coals  of  fire  which  havft 
thus  been  heaped  upon  your  heads,"  have  served,  it  should 
seem,  only  to  "irritate." 

If,  however,  the  orthodox  have  expressed  their  opinion  re- 
specting fellowship,  and  acted  upon  it,  is  it  not  also  true, 
that  those,  from  whom  they  have  witldicld  fellowshij),  h.ave 
likewise  expressed  their  erroneous  opinions,  and  acted  agree- 
ably to  tliem?  Doubtless  there  have  always  been  men  who 
have  thought  it  prudent  to  conceal  tlieir  opinions.  Only, 
however,  when  their  opinions  have  been  avowed,  and  acted 
out,  have  the  emmeous,  on  account  of  their  errours,  been  ex- 
cluded.    It  has  been  because,  that  from  their  opinions.  woj-(te 


liave  proceeded,  which  <*eat  as  dotli  a  canker."  and  deeds 
which  tend  to  the  subveision  of  the  gospel,  tliat  they  ha^ c 
been  placed  out  of  communion. 

But  you  say,  "Both  scripture  and  reason  unite  in  teaching; 
*"that  the  best  and  only  standard  of  char<icter  is  the  life." 
«*The  whole  scriptures  teach  that  he,  and  lie  only  is  a  chris- 
tian, whose  life  is  .e^overned  by  the  precepts  of  the  a-ospel,  and 
that  by  this  standard  alone,  t!ie  profession  of  this  religion 
should  be  tried."  <*Jesus  Christ  says,  'By  their  fruits  siiall 
ye  know  them."  I  have  no  difficulty  in  accedin.^  to  this  state- 
ment. I  certainly  hold,  and  wish  to  be  understood  to  hold, 
that  the  best  and  only  standard  of  charactei',  is  the  life;" 
that  "lie,  and  he  only  is  a  christian,  whose  life  is  governed 
by  the  precepts  of  the  gospel,^and  that  men  arc  to  be  "known 
by  their  fruits."  If,  however,  you  mean,  as  it  Is  evident  yon 
do,  that  in  estimating  or  determining  christian  character,  a 
man's  opinions,  his  faith  or  his  disbelief,  arc  not  at  all  to  be 
taken  into  tlie  account;  I  can  assure  you,  I  have  not  so  learn- 
ed Christ. 

The  scriptures  throughout  earnestly  and  authoritatively 
insist  on  fiith,  humble,  hearty  belief  of  the  truth,  as  essential 
to  christian  character.  The  chistian  life  is  a  life  of  faith.  The 
fruits  by  wliich  the  cliristian  is  to  be  known  are  the  fruits  of 
faith.  Cijristians  arc  believers.  They  are  sanctified  through 
the  truth.  Their  hearts  arc  purified  by  faith.  Such  is  the 
doct!-inc  of  scripture. 

It  a  man  discard  tlie  gospel  altogether,  as  a  cunningly  de- 
vised fable,  however  fair  and  commendable  in  other  respects 
[lis  life  may  be,  you  m  ill  hardly  yourself,  I  suppose,  find  in 
him  the  christian  character.  If  then  a  man  acknowledges  the 
gospel  t»  be  from  God,  and  even  makes  a  formal  pi-ofession 
ftfchi'istiaiiity,  and  yet,  instead  of  believing,  loving,  stead- 
fastly maintaining,  and  seeking  to  promote  the  great  and  es- 
sential truths  of  tlie  gospel,  disbelieves,  hates,  opposes,  and 
endeavours  to  discredit  and  obstruct  them;  though  he  may 
be  eminently  wliat  the  world  calls  honest,  and  benevolent,  and 
nmiable,  and  virtuous;  yet  must  not  his  christian  character 
be  matt ijally  and  eminently  defective?  Is  it  not  masiifest, 
that  "las  life  is"  not  "governed  by  the  precepts  of  the  gos- 


pel?' — particularly  those  leading  precepts,   wlacli  requirts 
liim  to  receive  the  truth  in  love, — to  obey  the  truth,  to  walk 
in  the  truth, — to  do  nothing  against  the  truth, — to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, — to  shine 
as  a  light  in  Ike  world,  holding  forth  the  word  of  life?  These 
christianfridis  are  certainly  wanting  in  him;  and  fruits  of  an 
opposite  kind, — fruits  as  bitter  as  the  "grapes  of  Sodom,  and 
the  clusters  of  Gomorrah,'*  are  exhibited. — If  he  be  a  pro- 
fessed minister  of  the  gospel,  and  in  addition  to  tlic  particu- 
lars now  mentioned,  instead  of  speaking  the  true  gospel  of 
Christ,  and  declaring  all  the  counsel  of  God,  he  preach  ano- 
ther gospel,  or  doctrines  subversive  of  the  truth,  and  employ 
all  the  advantages  of  his  publick  station,  and  all  the  inftuencc 
of  his  sacred  and  engaging  character,  in  counteracting  the 
faitliful  ministers  of  Christ,  representing  their  steadfast  ad- 
herence to  the  truth  as  bigotry,  their  earnest  defence  of  the 
gospel  as  iiliberality,  their  labours  to  prevent  the  spread  of 
the  pernicious  effects  of  errour,  as  persecution,  tlieir  zeal  for 
the  lionour  and   cause  of  Christ,   as  party  s])irit,  and  their 
measures  for  advancing  his  kingdom,  and  extending  his  sal- 
vation, as  projects  of  ambition; — wliat  must  we  say  or  think 
of  liis  life?  Is  it  governed  by  the  pi-ecepts  uf  the  gospel?  ^^Be- 
wa7T,"  says  He  who  came  down  from  iiea\  en  to  guide  our 
feet  into  the  way  of  peace,  **BerDare  of  false  prophets,  which  come 
to  tjou  in  sheep* s  clothing. — Ye  shall  Jinoiv  them  by  iAeir  truits." 
«False  teachers  would  pretend  extraoi'dinary  endowments 
of  Learning  perhaps,  or  Sanctity,  or  Ficty,  and  an  affection- 
ale  concern  for  the  happiness  of  those  wliom  they  should  ad- 
dress themselves  to.     But  they  might  be  detected  by  thei)- 
fmits.     For  if  their  doctrine  should  be  found  contraiy  to  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  that  is  conviction  at  once,  and  all  theij- 
e;Iozing  pretences  are  worth  nothing.    They  are  false  pro- 
plicts,  because  their  doctrines  arc  false.   What  can  be  a  plain- 
er proof  of  it?    Neither  is  it  any  objection  to  this,  that  our 
Lord  afterwards  speaks  of  doing  the  will  of  his  Father,  and 
ei  working  iniquity:  for  maintaining  the  fntf/i,  is  doing  God's 
tvill;    and  corrupting  or  resisting  it,  is  working  iniquity. 
Therefore,  let  this  be  included  at  least  among  other  bad  fruits, 
other  woi^ks  of  iniquitij,     Wc  will  allow  that  an  heretkk  in 
matters  of  mere  revelation,   is  not  so  bad  a  man,  generallv  , 
speaking,  as  an  herctick  in  mcrcditij;    but  still  he  may  be  a 
10 


74 

much  Morsc  man,  or,  to  speak  plainer,  may  do  a  great  deal 
more  mischief  by  his  doctrine,  than  the  immoral  man  may  do 
by  bis  example.  For  besides  his  propagating  dmigerous  er- 
ronrs,  subverting  souls,  it  is  fai-ther  to  be  considered,  that  lie 
Sfts  hinjself  up  as  a  rival  teacher,  in  opposition  to  the  iaitii- 
ful  ministers  of  Christ.  He  weakens  their  hands,  frustrates 
tbeir  pious  labours,  perverts  their  flocks,  gives  the  common 
enemy  a  handle  to  insult  and  blaspheme,  raises  a  kind  of 
flame  and  war  in  the  church,  and  remotely  administers,  to  all 
immorality  and  dissoluteness  of  manners,  by  taking  off  the 
influence  of  the  best  instructions.  Rcligioji  is  not  a  personal 
thing,  A\hich  every  man  may  new  model  or  alter  for  himself. 
It  is  the  joint  j)atrimony  of  the  whole  community;  and  every 
man  more  or  less  is  accountable  to  his  neighbour  for  any 
tvaste  made  in  it.  That  corrupting  the  faith  is  not  an  innocent 
practice,  but  a  very  ill  thing,  every  one  knows,  or  ouglit  to 
know.  I  speak  not  of  mere  mistakes  in  judgment,  but  of 
espousing  and  propaguling  them;  corrupting  the  faith  in  im- 
portant articles,  ajid  diftusing  such  corrujjtions.  A  life  so 
spent,  is  a  wicked  life,  if  opposing  diA  ine  trutlis,  undermining 
the  gospel,  and  subverting  souls,  be  wicked  attempts,  as  they 
undoubtedly  are."*  <'Bc  not  deceived,  my  brethren;  those 
that  corrupt  families  by  adultery,  shall  not  iidierit  tlie  king- 
dom of  God.  If  therefore  they  who  do  this,  according  to  the 
flesh,  have  suffered  death;  how  much  more  shall  he  die,  mIio 
by  his  wicked  doctrine  corrupts  the  faith  of  God,  for  which 
Christ  was  crucified?  He  that  is  thus  defiled,  shall  dei)art  into 
nn()ueuchahle  fire,  and  so  also  shall  he  that  hearkens  to  him."f 
The  Unitarians,  however,  according  to  you,  are  in  no  re- 
spect wanting  in  christian  churactei-,  and  have  nothing  to 
fear  from  the  judgment  of  men  or  of  God.  We  regard  otlier 
christians,"  you  say,  p.  14,  "as  brethren,  but  can  in  no  de- 
gree recognize  tliem  as  superiours  in  the  clmrch  of  our  com- 
mon Master.  A\e  do  not  dread  the  censures  which  they  may 
pass  on  our  honest  opinions.  We  rejoice  that  we  ha^  e  a 
liiglter  judge,  wliose  truth  it  is  our  Iribour  to  learn,  obey,  and 
maintain."  Who  are  these  otiier  christians,  whom  you  re- 
gard as  brethren?    Are  they  the  orthodox,  wliom  you  have 

•  Watcrland's  Importance  of  the  Doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity,  Chap.  v. 

t  Si.  Ii^iiiilius.  Epist.  to  (he  Epii.  Tlic  blessed  martyf,  it  sliould  seem,  had 
"learned,"  even  so  early  as  Uie  apostolick  Hfije,  what  you  say  I  have  learned — to 
"nwjikcn  nien'?>  feelings^  by  ad<h-essing  llieiryefjrs."  He  leartied  it,  I  suppose^ 
from  ihe  aposilts  themselves,  as  the  apostles  Lad  leai'ued  it  from  Christ. 


7^ 


condemned  as  "the  most  injurious  of  mankind,"  -breatl.m.s; 
venom  from  their  lips?"  Again,  p.  20,  -It  is  not  because  we 
exalt  reason  above  scripture,  but  because  we  revere  ^tbc  scrip- 
tures, that  we  maintain  Unitarian  principles."-— P.  2j.   "it 
is  truly  astonishing  that  christians  arc  not  more  impressed 
with  the  unbecoming  spirit,  the  arrogant  style,  of  those,  wh) 
deny  the  christian  character  to  prolcssed  and  ex&mplanj  fd- 
lowers  of  Jesus  Christ.     P.  28.    ''Do  these  oppose  what  tiuy 
knoxv  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  ap(jst!es?    D:.  luey 
not  revere  Jesus  Christ  and  his  inspired  messengers?"  P.  33. 
''This  practice  of  denouncing— exalts  to  supremary  in  the 
church,  men,  who  have  the  least  claim  to  influence.      Hum- 
ble, MEEK,  and  AEFECTioPfATE  chrhHans,   are  least  dis- 
posed to  make  creeds  for  their  brcUiren,  and  to  denounce 
those   who   differ  from   them."      AVho  those  arrogant  and 
l)roud  ones  are,  who,  in  your  estimation,  ha^ethe  Icf  st  claim 
to  influence,  wc  have  before  seen.     Tliey  are  the  ortliodox 
christians."     The  "exemplary  tbll.owers  «)f  Jesus  Christ,  tli& 
Irnnble,   meek,    and   affectionate   christians,   who  have  the 
hghest  claim  to  influence,  and  ought  to  be  exalted  to  supre- 
macy in  the  church,"!  are,  the  Unitarians.     .'T/je|/,"  you  af- 
firm, p.  23,  ('They  are  deficient  in  none  or  the  QUAiiiFi- 
CATIONS,  which  were  required  in  the  jrnmifvvc  age:'     Ortho- 
dox christians,  will  readily  concede,  that  they  have  no  prc- 
tcnsi(ms  to  claims  like  these.    Deeply  conscious  of  many  and 
a-reat  "deficiencies,"  they  are  far  from  considei-ing  them- 
selves  as   having   "already  attained,  or  being  already  per- 
fect,    "We  dare  not  make  ourselves  of  the  number,  or  com- 
pare ourselves  with  some  that  commend  themselves:  but  they, 
mea>;iiring  themselves  by  themselves,  and  comparir.g  thcm- 
scl\  es  among  themselves,  arc  not  wise." 

*  In  this  passage,  you  allurle,   as  in  the  cr^nnexirm,   yon  <b  reper.lediy,   to  th« 

Uuitalians,  respecting  the  scriptures;  and  you  tre.t  the  ^^%;\^''\'^^-^^  l'^,' 
s:ve  an.l  equivocal  ,*T.nner,  to  «hich   you  are  egres-ous  y  "<'^ '^'^^^/^ .„^,«,^^^,^^^^^^^^^ 
you  v.ll  nol,  you  caunot,  .U-uv  the  coirectness  ot  the  «^''  ^'"»^"' V     /  «  uS  o    i^' 
Ld  .|uerulouily  reter  to  it,  as  if  it  Mere  incorrect,  a.>d  vary.ng  .ae  aspect  ot  .1, 

"T'l-^^^s  :^n!Z^-ealth,  vou.  «„H  your  «hhc,-a!"  h,..hm,  -  «ly-^;^|;;,  :;t^e 
chief  .eats."  To  what  o! her  'Supremacy  you  uou.u  " '^''  V!>,%  ^>^4^^^^^^ 
can  well  he  exalted,  until  you  increase  jour  nun.hers,  «'■  ^'«  ••'''''^'1  ^'  '^';'  '.  ? '•, 
do  not  readily  see.  In  oiher  parts  of  o.n-  country,  ard  ot  the  cr  sltan  uo.l-l,  it 
;l;^^thL  confessed,  it  is  otherwise.  In  E„;;i.nd,  ih-.  -..esily,  ^^'^^^Vj^T^^ 
ought  to  haxebeen  bishoi,  of  St.  Asaph's,  ,  .  lead  of  Drilor.  .y,  Mi  -^f^  - 
Mr.  ReKhan..,  bishop  of  London,  instead  of  Ur.  Porleus,  Mr.  W  akefiel  1,  a.  chh  .... 
op  of  Canterbury,  instead  of  Dr.  ^!»o;•e;  and  the  present  d.gn.tar.es  ot  ne  estab- 
lishment, as  they  "have  tiie  least  cl.im  to  n.flucnce  on-ht  to  rci)gn  thi,.  pKurs 
•  :>  the  Uuitariaus,— such,  mid  so  many  as  cau  be  IjuiuI. 


70 

in  the  latter  part  (if  your  remarks,  pp.  S6 — 42,  yon  prc- 
•<cnt  a  friglitl'til  picture  of  the  eoMseipjcnee^,  which  you  ima- 
gine must  result  from  \a  hat  you  call  "the  system  of  exclusion 
and  separalioir,''  <liat  is,  the  system  of  non-communion  he- 
t\vee!i  orthodox  christians  and  Unitaiians.  It  would  have 
been  natui-al  tf)  conclude,  from  the  descriptions  which  yoii 
tiaA  c  given  of  these  two  classes  respectively,  that  you  could 
neither  have  wished,  nor  thought  it  possible,  that  any  thing 
like  christian  fellowship  should  subsist  between  them.  How 
can  you  indeed  wish,  how  can  you  think  it  possible  that  fel- 
lowship should  subsist  between  the  lnnnble,  meek,  aflfection- 
ate,  exemplary  followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  ami  ^he  proud,  the 
ari'ogant,  the  impetuous,  the  worst  of  persecutors,  and  most 
injurious  of  mankind,  whose  venomous  breath  secretly  blasts 
what  they  cannot  openly  destroy!  Can  the  wolves  and  tho 
sheep  dwell  together  w  ithiu  the  same  enclosure,  in  concord^ 
amit}',  and  peace? 

You  state,  however,  that  ^*i\\c  sj  steia  of  excluding  profess- 
ed disciples  ©f  CIn'iston  account  of  oj)inions,  is  incompatible 
with  t!ie  grej:t  principles  of  Congregationalism."  In  this, 
as  you  cannot  but  be  sensible,  you  differ  most  widely  from 
the  founders  of  tiie  Congregational  churciies,  whether  wc 
consider  as  tlie  founders  the  apostles  and  primitive  ministers 
of  Christ,  or  the  leaders  of  the  PuriUms  in  England  and  in 
this  counl ry.  The  apostles  certaudy  established  the  primi- 
tive churches  upon  this  system;  and  upon  this  s}  stem  the 
kaders  of  the  Puritans,  and  the  churches  founded  by  them, 
uniformly  acted.  Look  irito  the  platfrn-ms  of  these  churches, 
the  Savoy,  the  Cambriiigc,  and  the  Saybi'ook;  turn  over  the 
ecclesiastical  jocords  of  the  primitive  times  of  New  England, 
and  proof  will  accunudatc  upon  proof.  Tiie  Congregational 
churches  all  had  their  creeds,  their  confessions  of  faith,  and 
all  held  it  as  their  right  and  their  duty,  to  witidiold  and 
withdraw  fcllowship  from  all  who  denied  or  corrupted  the 
essential  ai'tiiles. 

Tet  you  sa}',  "This  system  will  shake  to  the  foundation 
our  religious  institutions,  and  destroy  n»ahy  habits  and  con- 
nexions AAhich  have  had  the  liappiest  influence  on  the  religious 
character  of  this  people.  The  aimual  convention  of  Congre- 
gational ministers  of  Massachusetts,  that  ancient  bond  of 
union  must  be  dissohcd.  The  association  of  ministers  in 
our  different  counties  must  in   many  cases  be  broken  up. 


Neiglibouriiig  churches  will  be  mutiu\lly  estranged.  In  Ihc 
same  church  angry  divisions  will  break  forth.  Many  relig- 
ious societies  will  be  rent  asunder,  their  ministers  dismissed, 
and  religious  institutions  cease.  Discord  will  be  cari'ied  iioi, 
only  into  churches,  but  into  families.  The  family  altar  musj; 
fall."  Such  are  the  direful  consequences  on  which  your  fe- 
verish imagination  broods,  and  to  wluc  !i  it  has  given  thi' 
most  dismal  colourings. 

Are  you  not  aware,  Sir,  that  this  sam?.  sort  of  abjection,  or 
of  ai'gument,  might  have  been  used  wit!)  equal  force,  and  ac 
tually  was  used,  by  the  Jews  against  preaching  the  gor^el 
and  establishing  christian  churches  in  Judea,— *by  the  Pagans 
against  pi'opagating  Christianity  in  th?  lands  where  their  gods 
were  worshipped, — and  by  the  Papists  against  the  doctrines 
of  the  Reformation,  and  separation  from  their  churcli.  It  is 
a  sort  of  popular  argument,  which  has  always  been  urged 
against  disturbing  the  corruptions  of  the  world,  bj^  the  exhibi- 
tion and  defence  of  the  truth.  The  awful  woids  of  oui-  liOid 
here  force  themselves  into  serious  recollection.  <*Wh()soever 
shall  deny  me  befoie  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  seixl 
peace  on  the  earth;  I  came  not  to  send  pcac?,  but  a  sword. 
For  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance  agairjst  his  father,  and 
the  daughter  against  her  mother.  And  a  man's  foes  shall  be 
those  of  his  own  household.*'^ — "Ultimately  indeed  I  shall 
establish  peace  in  every  sense  of  the  word,"  and  "shall  make 
wars  to  cease  in  all  the  world^  but  at  pi'csent,  and  indeed  for 
many  years  to  come,  I  shall  not  bring  peace,  but  a  sv/ord 
upon  the  earth.  The  promulgation  of  my  religion  \\U\  be 
productive  of  much  dissention,  cruelty,  aitd  persecution,  jkjI 
only  to  you,;  but  to  all  those  who,  for  many  ages  afterwards, 
shall  preach  the  g;ospel  in  purity  and  truth.  The  true  cannc 
of  this  will  be  the  wickedness,  i\vt(l  the  ferocious  passions  oi* 
nicn;  but  the  occasion  and  the  pretence  for  it  ^^  ill  be  the  holy 
religion,  which  you  are  to  promulgate.  In  this  sense,  and  in 
this  only,  it  is  that  I  may  be  said  to  bring  a  sword  upon  t!  e- 
earth;  but  they  who  reallij  bring  it,  are  the  o})en  eneinies  (v 
pretended  friciuls  of  the  gospel." — ««IIc  thiit  lovelii  falhci-  (;r 
mother,  more  than  me,  is  not  wortliy  ofme,  and  hetljat  hjvelis 
son  or  daughter  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  ofme."  "Tliat 
Is  evidently  when  the  nearest  and  dearest  rehitions  come  in 
competition  with  our  belief  in  Christ,   r.nd  oheuirnce  to  his 


78 

c  oiiitiiiiiul.s,  our  afTcction  for  them,  and  dofcTence  to  tlicir 
opinioris  must  give  jilace  to  love  for  our  Redeemer  and 
attaclimeiit  to  our  Maker.*'* 

But  why  must  these  dreadful  consequences  notv  ensue? 
The  <vsystem"  from  whicli  yo;j  say  t!iey  must  result,  is  not  a 
new  one.  It  lias  heen  in  isractice  from  the  lirst  ages  of  the 
gospel.  It  has  been  in  ])iartire  in  our  churches  from  the 
first  settlement  of  our  country,  'i'he  orthodox  churches  of 
New-England,  of  Massaclnisetts,  have  always  held  it  riglit 
to  separate  from  those  Avho  essentially  corrupt  the  gospel;  at 
no  period  of  our  history  have  they  supposed  thut  tiiey  ought 
to  be  in  communion  m  ith  avowed  Unitarians;  and  if  at  any 
time  they  have  heen  in  communion  with  them,  it  is  because 
lliose  Unitarians  have  not  heen  puhlickly  avowed  and  open. 
No  Sir;  we  are  not  introducing  or  proposing  a  new  sys- 
tem.f  >>  e  stand  upini  the  *»foundation"  of  our  fathers; — the 
venerable  (oundors  of  our  churches,  to  whom,  under  God,  \\c 
are  indebted  fur  our  ^'religious  institutions,"  and  the  iuvalu- 

"  AliUt.  \,  33 — .^7.  Blslinp  Porfeiis's  Lecture  on  the  Chapter, 
f  \(iu  say,  indeed,  tliiii  "ue  arc  tlirealeneil  with  new  tribunals,  or  connocitt,- 
tious;'"  thai  "il  is  a  nielaiiclioly  fact,  liiat  our  long  estalilisiicd  coiigregHlioii.il 
torm^of  chiireh  g.jvemmpiit  is  niennc"rl;"  and  takiii;^  your  note  tVoin'thc  "L:iy- 
nian,"  you  hlow  the  tnimpti  of  alarm  with  all  yiiur  might.  Were  this  the 
proper  plaee,  I  should  t'cel  iin-.tlf  entitled  to  speak  upon  this  subject  «iti»  a  degree 
«'f  ireedoiu  and  conlidencp.  ff  I  have  ever  made  iii)seh'  known  tor  any  thing,  I 
have  tor  iny  fuiu  adlierenc"  to  the  principles,  my  zealous  attachment  to  llie  lib- 
t-rties  oF  our  Coiigre;;aLional  cliurcheg.  In  defence  of  them,  my  pen  wa>  early 
employed;  and  in  llie  same  cause  my  feehle  voice  has  been  raised  in  ecclesiasliciil 
Councils,  in  the  (ieneral  Association  of  Massachusetts,  and  in  the  (Convention  of 
l.'ongregational  Ministers.  My  oiiinion  and  feehngs  upon  the  subject  remai<i 
tinchan.ned. 

TIr'  "Layman"  h.is  committed  a  mistake.  He  states  that  "an  obsolete  manu- 
script of  Dr.  Cotton  Mather, — is  non'  attempted  to  he  imposed  upon  ihe  chris- 
tian churches  of  this  state,  as  the  rule  of  their  government."  The  truth  is,  that, 
hy  the  Keiiort  of  the  Committee  of  the  Cieueral  \ssociation,  to  which  you  and  he 
reter,  t/nU  anrifiH  document  tvas  eiUively  set  aside;  not  a  scrip  of  it  was  retained: 
and  it  was  set  aside  for  the  very  reason,  that  it  ccjntained  principles  incompatible 
with  tlic  rights  and  liberties  ol  the  churches;  principles,  whicii,  sooner  than  at- 
tempt to  impose  them  u[)on  the  churches,  the  members  of  that  Committee,  some 
|>^  them  at  least,  -would  iiave  resisted  unto  blood.  All  therefore  that  the  Layman 
Jias  said  oil  this  subject,  falls  to  the  ground;  and  with  it,  what  >  ou  have  said,  as  you 
liMve  followed  liiai  both  in  seiitisnenls  and  words,  also  falls. 

'I'he  plan  of  Consociation,  presented  by  the  Committee,  I  have  con.'-.idercd  with 
earnest  attention, — liave  examined  and  re-examined  witli  anxious  scrutiny;  and  I 
iini  tree  to  declare,  that  1  can  see  nothing  in  it  repugnant  to  congregational  prin- 
fiples,  to  (he  I'latform,  or  to  the  lineriies  of  the  churches.  On  the  contrary  it 
d')es  ;ippear  to  me  well  calculated  to  revive  congi-egationalism  in  its  purity,  to  re- 
store the  Plaifonn  to  its  legitimate  use,  to  guarantee  to  the  churches  their  rights 
and  liberties,  and  to  secure  them  fVom  those  invasions,  infringements,  vexations, 
ai.d  Usurpations,  to  which,  since  the  I'latfirm  has  gone  so  generally  into  disuse, 
llu'y  have  been  continually  exposed.  I  may  be  in  an  erronr.  'I'he  I{eport  how- 
ever, asrreeably  to  the  e.c/jrcss  iiitenllon  and  dcnive  oj  the  Committee,  is  before 
the  publiik  for  free  consideration  and  discus-ion.  To  denounce  il  as  vou  ba^e 
done,  is  more  easy  than  wise.  1  sincerely  hope  it  will  be  examined  with  all  the 
fiirness  and  candour,  together  willi  uli  ihe  faithful  scrutiny,  and  jealous  care, 
which  its  nature  and  importance  demand.  If  vou  or  any  other  man  shall  make  it 
appear  to  be  unongregjiiioiial  in  its  principles,  or  datigerous  to  the  liberties  cf  ihc 
churches  in  its  provisions,  1  pledge  myselt  to  exert  w  lia'.evcr  I  may  possess  oV 
rt.?eut  or  of  influence;  to  p;-L\eiil"its  adoplio:). 


79 

able  blessings  which  liave  resulted  from  tlicm  to  our  bolovoil 
commonwealth  and  country.  We  adhere  to  their  faitli  and 
their  worship,  to  their  principles  and  system  of  ecclcsiasticnl 
order  and  discipline;  and  both  the  one  and  the  other  we  wish 
to  maintain  and  to  perpetuate,  in  their  genuine  spirit,  and 
with  all  theii'  benign  and  salutary  inlluence,  as  an  iiiiieii- 
tance  to  our  cbildren  and  our  children's  children.  Vou,  not 
we,  are  the  iiinovaterSy — the  aggi'essors,—tl)e  assailants.  By 
yaiif  not  by  us,  are  our  religious  institutions  to  be  shaken  to 
the  foundation,"  and  all  those  direful  consequences,  wiiicli 
you  have  so  rhetorically  repi-esented,  are  to  be  produced! 
Arc  you  and  your  friends.  Sir,  deferminea  on  all  tliis?  It 
should  seem,  from  the  pottcntous  signal  which  you  have 
given,  that  such  is  tiie  fact. — Then,  indeed,  "the  time  is 
come,  when'*  all  who  venerate  the  religion  of  their  fathers, 
who  love  the  gospel  of  Christ,  who  wish  well  to  the  tcm])nral 
and  eternal  interests  of  tljeir  fellow-men,  "are  called  to 
awake,  and  to  remember  their  duties  to  therriselves,  to  pos- 
terity, and  to  the  church  of  Christ."  To  affect  to  dcspis*^ 
your  strength  or  your  means,  would  not  be  the  part  of  wis- 
dom. We  know  very  well  \\Iiere  your  seat  is.  We  know 
that  you  have  established  yourselves  oi  the  high  places  of  the 
Commonwealth;  and  that  you  possess  advantages  for  exert- 
ing an  influence  as  extensive  as  it  may  be  destructive.  We 
know  too  that  the  earthly  dispositions  and  passions  of  man- 
kind, and  the  "imaginations  and  higli  tilings  which  exalt 
themselves  against  the  knowledge  of  Gail,"  are  on  your  side. 
And  we  are  not  unaware  how  apt  many  may  be  to  embrace. 
with  little  reflection  and  as  little  concern,  a  fashionable  I'c- 
ligion  which  has  a  shew  of  wisdom,  whirh  makes  the  oiTence 
©f  the  cross  to  cease,  which  af  connnodates  itself  to  the  spirit 
of  the  world. 

Are  "the  slumbering  minds  of  this  community,"  howcvcj', 
prepared  for  sucii  a  change  as  you  contemplate?  Are  the 
churches,  the  ministers,  tlie  people  of  Massachusetts,  prepar- 
ed to  yield  up,  without  a  struggle,  the  consecrated  faith  a,n(l 
worship,  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical  principles  and  insti- 
tutions of  their  ancestors?  Ai-e  they  pi'cpared  to  renounce 
the  religion,  and  place  themselves  out  of  the  fellowship  of  tlie 
general  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  embrace  a  religion, — 
an  unblest  religion, — whicli  has  Jiever,  in  any  countiy,  or  in 
any  age,  been  admitted  to  that  holy  fellowship?  Arc  they  pre- 
pared publickly  to  declare  against  the  Divinity  and  atone- 


80 

ment  of  Him,  \\ho  is  *'tlic  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
^^orh),"  and  in  whose  name  ah)ne  there  is  salvation  f()r  men? 
to  "l)rcak  Isis  ban-Is  asunder,  and  to  cast  away  his  cords 
from  tliem!'* — I  trust  in  God  tliat  they  are  not;  I  trust,  that 
ilicy  tisat  arc  with  us,  are  nioie  than  they  that  arc  with  you; 
and  th;it  ihe  God  of  our  fathers  has  not  yet  forsaken  the 
f  liurchos,  whicli  tliey  phmted  with  so  many  prayers,  and 
V.  atcrcd  with  so  many  tears.  It  is  devoutly  hoped  that  *<re- 
jl:  f  tln,2;  hiymen,"  and  all  the  people,  will  open  '-their  eyes  to 
this  subject:"  a  subject  which  most  deeply  concerns  both 
their  temporal  anu  eternal  interests,  and  than  which  no  othei- 
can  have  a  higher  claim  to  their  earnest  and  serious  consid- 
eration. I  deem  it  by  no  means  too  solemn,  to  refer  them  to 
the  awful  warning  of  the  second  Psalm.  "Be  wise  now 
therefore,  O  ye  kiM;^s:  be  instructed,  yc  judges  of  the  earth. 
Kiss  the  SoxV  lest  he.  he  angry,  and  ye  perish  from  the  "way 
ivhm.  Ids  xvraih  is  kindled  but  a  Ultle. 

I  ask  hov.ever  aii^ain,  \\hy  must  those  consequences,  so 
baleful  to  society,  to  churches,  and  to  families,  ensue?  If 
Unitarians  are  "humble,  meek,  affectionate  christians,"  it 
surely  should  be  little  expected,  that  a  s])irit  of  discord,  ard 
strife,  and  animosity,  and  bitterness,  and  violence  would  be 
displayed  by  them;  and  little  of  such  a  spirit,  I  sincerely  hope 
and  ?.m  firmly  persuaded,  will  be  displayed  by  the  orthodox, 
notwitlistanding  the  heavy  accusations  which  you  have 
brong'ht  and  may  contiiuse  to  bring  against  them.  I  repeat 
what  I  said  in  my  Second  Letter,  and  1  do  it  with  the  utmost 
sincerity  and  earneslness:  "Though  we  differ  and  \\idely 
differ  in  our  opinions: — though  we  engage  in  debate  on  most 
important  and  interestiiig  points; — though  \\  e  should  find  oc- 
cfision  even  to  separate  as  to  christian  fellowslnp;  yet  theie 
need  not  he,  tliere  ought  not  to  be,  and  if  our  tempers  wei  c 
I'ight  there  would  not  be,  ar>y  bitterness,  or  wj-ath,  or  angei-, 
or  clamour,  or  evil  speakiniv  on  eitlier  side.  The  gospel 
leaches  us  to  exercise  unfailing  chai-ity  and  good  will,  not 
tn:iy  towards  those  whom  we  receive  to  christian  fellowjliip, 
ijut  towards  all  men."  V»  hei-ever  then  we  can  uv^ot,  let 
u^  meet  with  mutual  courtesy  and  kindness;  wherever  we  can 
i:ooper;v1:i  for  any  good  object,  let  us  amicably  and  heartily 
rooj>erate;  aiid  where  we  must  part,  let  us  pail  in  the  spirit 
of  peace,  and  with  sincere  desires  and  prayers  for  each  other's 
good.      Youi's,  Rev.  and  dear  Sir,  with  aftection  and  respect, 

>V//r;»,  /^fc.  1815.  S.  WORCESTER. 


^^D..^^^:  ^^> 


